Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 June 9 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Burning Inside. Clear consensus not to retain as standalone, redirecting to artist as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparition (Burning Inside album)[edit]

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

No reliable sources or coverage, and no evidence to demonstrate notability. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:03, 8 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. With no prejudice against renomination; given the lack of further participation despite relistings (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shivin Narang[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GNGACTOR. Period! Hatchens (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't have to meet the general notability guideline if it meets the specific notability guideline WP:NACTOR. That is established in point #1 in the lede at WP:N. The box on the right contains a link to WP:BIO, which houses WP:NACTOR. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, is there a discussion board where we can ask about the approach to GNG and SNG, because different editors have different opinions as to how they should be treated for notability purposes? Dflaw4 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: Doubt there's a noticeboard. You might try Wikipedia talk:Notability, the talk page related to that guideline page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, thanks. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable TV actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject passes WP:NACTOR quite easily, in my opinion, with long-running roles in TV shows and a large fan base. There are also a lot of sources at "google news", including articles from The Hindustan and The Indian Express, such as this. I too think that the page should be worked on, not deleted. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Pack Lambert, you have voted twice. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all articles must meet the general notability guidelines. They are general. Special guidelines only guide us on what is notable and in some cases they also point to things that do not meet inclusion criteria. The GNG must be met. This is more true of living people than of dead ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 06:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Eve of the Entities[edit]

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

Cites no sources, does not attempt to demonstrate notability. The album appears only on fan lists and music retail sites. There is no coverage that I can find, and no RS. JohnmgKing (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia doesn’t need more unsourced stub articles about albums from obscure metal bands. Is the band itself even notable? Dronebogus (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, no RS. @Dronebogus:: I also doubt the notability of the band as well. The only reliable sources were an Allmusic biography and an interview. But nothing else. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not notable. This and their other album (and the article on the band itself) need to all go. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No RS. scope_creepTalk 18:32, 15 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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Kikon[edit]

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

This musician does not pass any of the criteria listed under WP:SINGER. Also, the song mentioned in the article, which was supposedly the musician's "hit song", does not pass WP:NSINGLE Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are some coverage on media. It is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that he was apparently more popular in the past (1990s) before news articles from such places get regularly archived on the internet made sourcing more difficult. That there is still current coverage of the singer would indicate that he is a singer of some local significance. Anonymousme (talk) 03:47, 09 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The vote above commits the "there must be sources" fallacy. I agree that the singer was from a remote area and modern online coverage is unlikely, but that is not enough for a "keep" vote. All that can be found online and in English are tributes that came in after the singer's death. If the singer has viable coverage in old hardcopy sources in his local language, those will have to be found and discussed here before anyone votes to keep the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anonymousme. We have to keep systemic bias in mind in situations like this. First, Nagaland is a remote state with low population and low internet connectivity. Second, Kikon's songs are clearly not in English, having listened to "Choro Kupi" just now. Since he is Lotha I assume he is singing in the Lotha language, which is only spoken by 180,000 people. Nagaland is extremely diverse linguistically; the most spoken language is spoken by about 12% of the population. Between these factors and the fact that he was most popular long before the Internet reached that part of the world, and in a decade when nearly 40% of Naga were illiterate, this article's subject is a perfect storm of systemic bias issues leading to difficulty finding sources. Therefore, I view the existing sources as sufficient to determine notability, and the article should be kept. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 09:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the comment above, the reliable references state that he was the most popular singer in his state during the 60s to 80s so would pass criteria 7 of WP:NMUSIC (only 1 criteria needed). It would be remiss not to include him on Wikipedia in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree. Totally obscure. scope_creepTalk 18:36, 15 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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Parry[edit]


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

Article was originally created probably as a promotion for Parry's (not yet notable) website The Eye Wales and has since been renamed and gutted to leave a biography of Parry. He was a BBC journalist and sometimes a TV presenter and, though I'm old enough to recognise his face, I don't see any substantial independent coverage about him to pas WP:GNG. The WP article is now only supported by the occasional quotes in the Western Mail, or by articles about television programmes (or news items) he was associated with. It is nowhere near strong enough to warrant keeping the article, unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Capewearer (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Capewearer (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Capewearer (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Capewearer (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sionk makes some unfair allegations against Parry.
He also appears to live and have interests in the eastern South Wales valleys and within 20 miles of Parry. My thoughts ,as an ex Reuters journalist ,is he is in collusion with Llemiles who lives in the same locality.Both appear to have an interest in editing Nation Cymru’s website. Parry set up The Eye Wales journalism site in 2011 after he left the BBC for health reasons.
The Nation Cymru site has been set up up in the last couple of years purporting to be an independent news service for Wales. Parry and his Eye site has exposed political bias at Nation Cymru with the editor Ifan Morgan Jones previously proclaiming he was voting Plaid Cymru. There are many examples of the conflict Parry has exposed with Ifan Morgan Jones such as his site receiving funding from the Book Council of Wales which is not allowed to divert funds to political propaganda.
Much is made of Ifan Morgan Jones media qualifications but he has only ever been involved in websites unlike Parry who has a long established career with the prime newspaper,commercial tv and BBC Radio and TV ovef decades.
Parry deserves credit for his contribution to Welsh Broadcasting over a couple of decades sadly abrupted by a rare illness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Clintergate (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea where Phil Parry lives, though apparently you do! Wikipedia articles should be based on recognition of people's achievements in the real world (reviews, awards, biographies, news coverage about them) rather than the opinions of Wikipedia editors like you or me. If there is such proof, it would be sensible to reveal it. Sionk (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Simple journalism results in revealing Parry’s location as Cardiff.https://mobile.twitter.com/philparry2?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Clintergate (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How much proof do you want?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/long-running-bbc-wales-current-13287695
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/c4e60045-8e73-365c-a929-670af1dc5e0b
Martin Clintergate (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I have any interest in where he lives, but neither of those articles enlighten me. In fact one only has a quote from him, the other mentions his name twice. Sionk (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Phil Parry is one of Wales's leading investigative journalists. He had a ten-year run as a senior reporter on BBC Wales's flagship current affairs strand 'Week In, Week Out'. At Britain-wide level, he fronted editions of 'Panorama' and also contributed to BBC network programmes 'Newsnight' and 'Public Eye'. He has also worked extensively for BBC Radio Wales. He has also worked in commercial TV and newspapers.
As Martin Clintergate states, it does appear as though Sionk is in collusion with Llemiles. Both have an interest in Nation.Cymru, whose editor, Ifan Morgan Jones, Parry exposed as receiving public funding along with having a pro-Plaid Cymru agenda. NeilA1978 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: NeilA1978 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
I freely admit to making some small attempts to clean up the Nation.Cymru article, and having an interest in Wales subjects. But I don't think this (or other editors' beef with Ifan Morgan Jones) should have anything to do with this AfD discussion. Sionk (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment could all contributors please be WP:Civil in this discussion, and WP:Assume good faith about other editors. An WP:Articles for deletion discussion is about whether the subject of the article is notable enough for an article, so please comment on the content and not about other editors. Relevant guidelines for notability here include WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BIO: does the subject meet those criteria for inclusion? Thanks, Capewearer (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would like to echo Capewearer's comments above about WP:AGF. I was pretty horrified at the state of this article when it was originally named The Eye Wales, as it was clearly breaking WP:ADVERT. Martin's keen obsession with Phil and Phil-related articles and arguments has made me repeatedly raise questions about his identity and whether there is a WP:CONFLICT re many of the edits on this article. He has strongly denied it so at best I can only assume he is a close former colleague. All that said, I would like to keep this article on the basis that Phil is indeed a notable journalist. His CV and the (rare) sources with his name attached to major broadcasts are probably just about enough. But I would heavily caveat my Keep vote with the fact we need to keep this article independently sourced and stop it becoming a channel for Phil or his supporters to voice their dislike for other journalists, or those they are investigating. If his blog is the reputable investigatory outlet he says it is, then I'm sure his work will speak for itself. It does not need to be amplified and 'marketed' here or at other articles like Nation.Cymru as Martin has attempted to do. This cannot be an article solely for the purpose of selling The Eye Wales and its work. I am also raising a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Eye_Wales as I don't believe the content of The Eye is suitable for referencing on Wikipedia. Much of it is very tangential nonsense, Phil's past work aside. Llemiles (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you think of Parry’s work on The Eye it was the first English language online investigative news site when launched in 2011.He continues to publish stories not found elsewhere.Martin Clintergate (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What, like the conspiracy about Carol Vorderman's bottom? He's just about notable but I think you're over egging it. Llemiles (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the Eye is canvassing users to this discussion [1] buidhe 22:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the subject has won a BAFTA Cymru award for his work, and there are significant mentions in reliable sources such as BBC News and Western Mail. Welsh media is notoriously led by very few outlets and so it’s not reasonable to expect a diversity of sources that you might otherwise. However I do have concerns about the tone of this AfD, that would lead me to think that this article needs further work to make it more neutral. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can see the way the wind is blowing here, but I'd point out Parry didn't win a Bafta Cymru. BBC Wales Panorama won the award. Sionk (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tyson[edit]

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

PROD by BlameRuiner in December 2019 with the explanation: "Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Only played in American Soccer League (1933–83) which isn't a fully-pro league." Article restored by me at WP:RFUD by request. I agree that it does not pass NFOOTY, nor does it likely pass GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please let me know what needs to be done in order for this page to be re-instated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerg7932 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are newspaper articles I have & his induction into the Long Island Soccer Hall of Fame in 2018 as a player on the "1978 ASL National Championship NY Apollo" team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccerg7932 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nithin Prasanna[edit]

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

Unsourced, unknown actor. I couldn't find any sources about him. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soruce can be found here -

  • "A (Ad Infinitum) official Teaser". TimesofIndia. 2020-06-05. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
  • "Teaser of Thriller A (Ad Infinitum) unveiled". Indiaglitz. 2020-06-05. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
  • "A (Ad Infinitum) looks promising". Telugubulletin. 2020-06-05. Retrieved 2020-06-05.

Alan Blore (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Film trailer. No evidence of notability presented. scope_creepTalk 18:40, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hollingsworth (equestrian)[edit]

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

There may be RS, but the amount of coverage is less than a Twitter bio and none of it is encyclopedic or about the subject's professional career. Nowhere near passing GNG unless there's some actual sigcov as yet to be found and added. Kingsif (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Jiménez (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. 2.O.Boxing 19:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 19:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 19:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 19:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As both sources come from the exact same website. The boxer is not notable, as he really didn't do anything that was really worth covering. I found absolutely nothing about the boxer. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 08:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX and my search didn't find the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Winning a title in one of the many minor boxing organizations is not enough to show notability, especially when he won less than half his fights. Papaursa (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only thing I could find was a marriage notice. scope_creepTalk 18:42, 15 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 2020 United States Senate election in New Mexico. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ronchetti[edit]

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

Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. He's a candidate for office but has never been elected. He's not notable outside of the campaign. Marquardtika (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does his television career meet the "notable" criteria? If not then it's an obvious delete.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kandurata Cricket Club[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket club, founded in 2019. Does not play at the highest domestic level in Sri Lanka (which would be first-class) and has no historical importance, with the article also making erroneous claims about Test cricket. Fails WP:NCRIC inclusion guidelines for cricket club's and by extension fails WP:CLUB and WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete new local team, so not notable as per the nominator's well made points. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Johnlp (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. Seemingly a minor local club only, and newly established so no history. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Rangi Group[edit]

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

Promo piece for non-notable company. Schwede66 17:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find sources for a winery with the same name that is an unconnected business, but no RIS for this. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No effective sources. Weird hybrid article, full of WP:PUFF. Non-notable. No real coverage. scope_creepTalk 18:48, 15 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) 17:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hogwood[edit]

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

Non notable painter. No WP:RS to VERIFY GNG or NARTIST. FriDaInformation (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. FriDaInformation (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Google search only resulted in social media pages and sites selling her work. Mtheletter (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Smith (activist)[edit]

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

To me this article clearly falls under WP:BIO1E, in particular: When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. The subject seems to really only be notable for his UN appearance in September 2019 as part of Greta Thunberg's entourage, and the only significant press coverage he received is a local newspaper report about the UN event. If he has played a notable role in the public ever since, the article doesn't reflect that. bender235 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the suggestion. I've added new references and information to Carl Smith's page. Smith has been now been involved in two United Nations events (the most recent in December 2019) and has been featured in national news sources including NPR and CNN, now referenced in the article. While his career as a climate activist is just beginning, his involvement in United Nations activities on an international stage makes him noteworthy. Gthh (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, not trying to be rude Bender235, but not all of the people listed in {{School strike for climate}} are teenagers. Some of them are twenty-somethings. Cheers. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And yes, I did spot the sarcasm. As I said, I think we have been stretching the boundaries of WP:ANYBIO too far in many of these cases, and I don't just mean climate change activists. The same could be said for half the people listed on {{Stoneman Douglas High School shooting}}. --bender235 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bender235 I totally agree with you that ANYBIO has been stretched in this template and the Stoneman Douglas High School template, but nobody has been wanting to figure out which passes the criteria and which isn't. and I appreciate your efforts cookie monster (2020) 755 16:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Lucy Gray (activist) is notable, either. Needs to be nominated for AfD. cookie monster (2020) 755 16:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable climate activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and does not pass GNG. Very few sources on him, and the ones that do mention him are in-depth. cookie monster (2020) 755 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing how this meets notability.--Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 01:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete They are certainly passing mentions and not in-depth in any manner needed to establish notability, but there is lot and lots and of them, in at least two continents. scope_creepTalk 18:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blaise beatz[edit]

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

Non-notable Nigerian musician and record producer who fails WP:GNG. Article is also written in a promotional tone. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 16:38, 8 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. Obvious consensus not to delete the content outright. Whether or not to merge can be discussed outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1526 in Ireland[edit]

1526 in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this page necessary? There is no reference listed and arguable, a category would better serve the purpose.

It has only one birth listed. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Edmund Tanner, whose c. 1526 birth was apparently the only notable event in Ireland that year. pburka (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the 152X in Ireland articles into 1520s in Ireland in the style of 1520s in England. Alternatively, redirect to 1526. the article is part of a series of years in Ireland so it doesn't make sense to delete this one independently. (also it's highly unlikely that only one thing happened in 1526 ) Eddie891 Talk Work 20:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Eddie891, agreed. This seem like a good choice. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or merge all of the 152x in Ireland to a new page, part of an established series on the list of years in Ireland. It's likely that there's more than one notable entry. For instance, MPs are considered to be notable passing WP:NPOL, there were MPs over Ireland in the 1500s, so it's possible that one was born in Ireland in 1526. My first choice would be keeping, but I am not opposed to merging all of the articles together into a decade article. Hog Farm (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Asking "Is this page necessary?" is not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lugnuts, well this list page seems a bit useless with just 1 person listed. As the above suggested, merging is probably a better idea. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there's a better target article to merge to, then I'd support that. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, merging all the 152x to 1520s in Ireland as suggested by User:Eddie891?
A lot of the "year pages" only have 1 or 2 events --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Unless someone unearths info on a ton of events from the 1520s! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE Some of the other articles of this nature such as at Category:16th century by country and elsewhere, have been merged to by decades instead. Short articles can be easily merged. Dream Focus 15:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is an incredible lack of information in these articles. It is best to have everything from 1520's Ireland combined into one article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...this is an expanding series. Sarah777 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah777, expanding? How? Unless you have a time-machine, new "births" won't be added. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "new "births" won't be added"...why? How many people do you imagine were born in Ireland in 1526? Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, it could be expanded with Nicholas St Lawrence, 4th Baron Howth, Breasal Ó Madadhan, and perhaps William FitzWilliam (Lord Deputy) and Thomson Airways incident. Additionally, this 1851 book has a whole chapter on 1526 in Ireland. pburka (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomson Airways Flight 1526 has nothing to do with the year 1526. Two of the names you mentioned died on that year. Do the other articles like this mention people's deaths as well as births? If you find enough to make an article you can always break it out from where it was merged to. Dream Focus 04:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deaths are usually included in these articles. The airplane was a joke. pburka (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it can be expanded. Spleodrach (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good for documenting several events that occurred in the said year. Personally I think these article should be left as is per above arguments and we need to avoid deletion of articles which have huge potential. Siddsg (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of the 152x in Ireland to a new page - I quite support, due to the lack of content. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Eddie891, Scorpions13256 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 15 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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mumbly Cartoon Show[edit]

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

Show doesn't appear to have any notability at all, and it merely consists of a lead description and an episode guide. IceWalrus236 (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTV and sources currently cited in the article. NTV says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)." The Mumbly Cartoon Show aired on ABC. I've added some more information to the page using several sources, including:
    • Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949 Through 2003 by Hal Erickson, McFarland & Co (2005)
    • Children's Television: The First Thirty-Five Years, 1946-1981, Part I: Animated Cartoon Series by George Woolery, Scarecrow Press (1983)
    • The Art of Hanna-Barbera: Fifty Years of Creativity by Ted Sennett, Studio Publishing (1989)
I believe that this establishes notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Slam-dunk NTV keep. Nate • (chatter) 20:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The notability of the Mumbly Cartoon Show is that it was aired along side the 1975 Tom and Jerry Show and Produced By Hanna-Barbera oh and its also mentioned in Hal Erickson is bookDoctorHver (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 21:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantana (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, failing WP:MUSICBIO. Only known for menstruating during a stage performance. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is a very notable in Ghana and has done lots of works in terms of her career in music.As aforementioned that she is known for mensuration, is not the only thing notable about her she has done a lot of works. Due to the fact that it's a collaborative effort another editor put that there.This does not mean that it should not be there because she is using that for a worthy course to empower young ladies in Ghana.Jwale2 (talk)
  • Delete - doesn’t appear to meet the WP:GNG, nor is there any indication any of her music has charted in any major charts. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Good luck to her as she gets her career started, but so far she is the subject of a massive publicity campaign with few or no results in the charts or in significant and reliable media reports. The article uses a good number of sources from the Ghana entertainment media but they are uniformly brief promotional announcements originating from that same publicity campaign. All of the promotion can take place somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 16:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cursed Mansion[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, unremarkable upcoming video game at this time (WP:TOOSOON?). Searches through Google and WP:VGSE brings up other entries containing the words "cursed mansion" but is completely unrelated to this game in question. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a TOOSOON case if enough info was available and the release isn't too far away. However, there is exactly no info in reliable sources, where WP:VG/SE searches only return unrelated results with similar text matches. This is just another unnotable topic created by the same RPG Maker game fan, three of which are currently at AfD. All of their articles should be checked for deletion. IceWelder [✉] 15:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked all of their created articles, PROD'd some of them, tagged a few others and CSD'd one. There are a few others I decided to leave alone cause they had enough evidence of notability as they stood. I also have to note that I left the articles at AfD alone to not disrupt their discussions. --letcreate123 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable unreleased fan game. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Zero reviews listed on the Metacritic page, which was the only page I could find related to this game on WP:VGSE. The only cited source seems to be a primary one that describes the game in detail. Does not even come close to meeting WP:GNG. --letcreate123 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable with zero news articles on Google as far as I can tell. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Paul[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTuber and independent filmmaker which fails to meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Pahiy (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough sources to support a bio article. Mccapra (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. 135k fans. Could be notable in the future, but no coverage at the moment.
  • Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Pesticide1110 (talk) 08:31, 16 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) 19:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick M. Dolan[edit]

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE at [5]. I have no comment on the validity of the deletion request; this is a courtesy listing. Article was tagged with CSD but no valid criterion. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject's CV [6] shows a few journal/book series editorships, but overall the possible case for passing WP:PROF appears to be fairly marginal. The account which made the deletion request, User:Fmdolan, was created back in 2006 and made a few sporadic edits since then. So I think this is a genuine WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request. Nsk92 (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete assuming genuine request per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject is probably marginally notable (WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR), but not so much that we can't do without the article in the presence of such a request. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, there are a bunch of book reviews in JSTOR that could be added here... (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There are several full length book reviews of Allegories of America on Google Scholar, but we could simply write an article on the book rather than the author. buidhe 18:37, 15 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 Magalia, California. czar 16:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Pines, California[edit]

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

A subdivision with a POA which is located in the Magalia CDP. I note that the county states that this fire station, which is located in/on the edge of the subdivision, is located in Magalia and doesn't mention the subdivision. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Magalia, California. Subdivisions aren't notable, but communities are, and it's part of the community of Magalia so a redirect makes the most sense here. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. A subdivision of a CDP. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 16:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choice Logistics[edit]

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

Non-notable company. All sources trace back to the subject, BEFORE didn't turn up anything beyond PR releases and routine coverage. Page history indicates that the majority of contributions have been from promotional SPAs (interspersed with other editors cutting out the promotion) creffett (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sources I can find are primary sources tracing back to the company itself (press releases, mainly). Fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Strong evidence of undisclosed paid editing involving marketing service and engagement in editing by management personnel at the company. Graywalls (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 16:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Yadav[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability, no external reliable coverage at all. Signature 13:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nowhere near top rank; not elected official; difficult for me to search on mobile but am getting nothing & media coverage would usually be routine passing mentions. There seems currently to be some sort of off-wiki thing leading to disruption in Yadav-related articles & the article creator may be involved or encouraged/misguided by that. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does this even need an AfD. Notability is not asserted (unless being a police officer is notable). --regentspark (comment) 16:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see evidence that this person meets GNG, and I do not see evidence that they meet any supplementary guideline that could supersede GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borders on WP:A7 in terms of notability the creator of this article has also created several other articles on non-notable police officials. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem to match any of our guidelines. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:5P5. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Rally de Portugal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2020 Rally de Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The rally was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The circumstances of this are addressed in the 2020 World Rally Championship article. This article only contains basic information about the rally, such as the itinerary; all rally report articles contain some variation of this. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly redirect to 2020 World Rally Championship, retaining the categories. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - it's not unusual to have articles about cancelled events (Category:Sports events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic), has more information than in the proposed target article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if the subject fails WP:GNG, it might be able to receive an article as per WP:5P5. Not to mention the article actually passes the GNG. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lots of the entries in Category:Sports events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic are redirects, including entries such as "2020 Dutch Grand Prix", incidentally a Formula 1 race, which is far more notable than WRC rallies. Geschichte (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell that to the editor who wrote "it's not unusual to have articles about cancelled events". Geschichte (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't forget he also pointed out "has more information than in the proposed target article". Unnamelessness (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:30, 8 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. It's WP:SNOWing. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry: Blast Off to Mars[edit]

Tom and Jerry: Blast Off to Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable direct to video film, only coverage is reprints of press releases, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only two sources look like they come directly or almost directly from the film's PR department. PJvanMill (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to pass WP:GNG based on having been reviewed in at least three reliable sources (Radio Times, Screen Rant (a WP:NEWSORG as it has an editorial team and professional reviewers), and a book on Mars movies published by McFarland): 1 2 3. These reviews clearly aren't based on press releases as they are all negative about the movie. Please note per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST we should not simply look at the state of referencing in the article as it stands but look to see whether there are any other potential sources. FOARP (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources that should also be considered: a review in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet here, a review in the book Lexikon des internationalen Films - Filmjahr 2011 here, and finally a very long review on the German website MDPRESS, which, judging from their "about us" page is a pass for WP:NEWSORG as it is a professionally-run publication with an editorial team. FOARP (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the above comment. The article mentions the three reliable sources (based on WP:NEWSORG) independent of the production companies that reviewed the movie, therefore it passes WP:GNG. A.J. Shulman (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the above comments, but also it is notable as being the first work by Joseph Barbara after his long-time partner, William Hanna, died. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not looked at the book, but the two online reviews are very short. WP:NFSOURCES says that "capsule reviews", which both of these would fall under, are not significant coverage. Thus, these two sources should not be counted towards notability. PJvanMill (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It turns out the bit in the book is also a capsule review: [7]. So that is significant coverage in exactly zero independent, reliable secondary sources so far - and we need multiple. PJvanMill (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that these are capsule reviews. A capsule review is a sentence or two (or even the single word "No"), whilst these are extended paragraphs. Even if you think that a review has to be longer, the MDPress and Common Sense Media reviews are multiple paragraphs in length. FOARP (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I’d say the review in the Radio Times constitutes significant coverage, and there is also this review:[8] by Common Sense Media, which definitely provides SIGCOV. Therefore, I think this passes NFILM. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Radio Times piece and Mars in the Movies demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's now enough sources and reviews for it to have significant coverage. - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 8:44, 11 June 2020 (AEST)
  • Keep With the two new sources added since my comments, I think it passes the GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yip. scope_creepTalk 19:01, 15 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 Iran–PJAK conflict. czar 21:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006 Sardasht incident[edit]

September 2006 Sardasht incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability Ladsgroupoverleg 12:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Iran–PJAK_conflict. I think that the content in the article can be explained in the context of the larger conflict, and while this incident merits mention, I don't believe it is notable enough to warrant its own article. HenryMP02 TALK 22:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability criteria. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Iran–PJAK_conflict, mostly per HenryMP02. It relies entirely on a single source, so I agree it does not seems the topic is notable enough to have its own article, but deleting it entirely seems a bit extreme. PJvanMill (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is more in depth coverage is needed Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godson Umeh[edit]

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

Non-notable jeweler that fails to meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Only coverage is from Guardian NG which speaks about a pendant he made for a footballer nothing more. Lapablo (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page provides two reliable secondary sources (Guardian Nigeria, Businessday Nigeria), that are written by journalists and not just press releases. The sources also discuss the subject as the main topic. Angryapathy (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Angryapathy. I also want to add that The Guardian is one of Nigeria's most respected newspapers and is seen by many as the country's paper of record. It's not just any old source - this is the Nigerian equivalent of coverage in the NY Times. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CactusJack: The Guardian sources cited in the article does nothing to confer notability. The first one isn't independent of the subject and the second is about the subject designing jewelries for a popular footballer's kids.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — @CactusJack & Angryapathy, asides the rationale provided by Lapablo, a major concern here is that per WP:GNG, we require in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Yes, no doubt the subject is mentioned in reliable sources but I’m unsure if they discuss him with in-depth or significant coverage. Every source I see just announces how celebrities patronize him & nothing more. Celestina007 (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Has not done anything noteworthy.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 00:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:18, 16 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. While there is some consideration that the article should be draftified until it is in a more complete state, there is a firm consensus that despite major absences in the article, no deletion grounds exist and it can always be improved. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2010[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tropical cyclones in 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very incomplete, and has been incomplete since it was created in 2018. Most of the monthly headings refer to January 2010, which indicates that no one has even tried to complete the article. Information on storms is available on individual storm articles, in the articles on storms in years in each of the seven basins, and in an overall list article. This article not only creates more work for the WikiProject, but it creates work that they are not doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP No valid reason given for deletion. WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:INCOMPLETE You can't delete it because you are upset it would require work to fix and are upset a Wikiproject of volunteers is not doing that work. Dream Focus 17:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep...concurring with Dream Focus. ~ AC5230 talk 17:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See Tropical cyclones in 2019 for what the article could eventually look like. Stub class articles shouldn't be deleted just because they require some work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion was closed at 20:49 on 6 June by User:Chicdat, a non-administrator, as speedy keep. In line with the process at WP:DPR#NAC, I, an uninvolved administrator, am vacating this closure. I am doing this on the grounds that none of the criteria at WP:SK, which are exhaustive, apply to this AFD: the nominator has not withdrawn, the nomination was not made on the grounds of vandalism or disruption, the nomination is not erroneous, the nominator was not blocked or banned, the page is not a policy or guideline, and the page was not linked from the main page. This is an entirely procedural step. The deletion discussion will be relisted for a fresh seven-day period from today. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep 99% of our articles are incomplete and it's our clear policy that this is ok. WP:ATD also states clearly that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say 100%. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 13:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completenessness is a requirement for featured status and those so few articles which have reached that level have been formally agreed to be complete.
  • Delete with recreation or Draftify You could argue that anything "could" be improved through editing. Correcting a spelling error is improving an article. So, it's way to vague a standard to keep everything due to. Plus, I've never seen anywhere that WP:ATD comes before or cancels out WP:GNG. The question is, is this the subject of the article notable, and from some research I'd say no. The cyclones I looked into that are included in the article didn't have their own articles. Treat it like a glorified list article, would a list article with no (or practically zero) blue links be notable enough to pass an AfD? I don't think so. More so in this case because it's not a list article and therefore requires encyclopedic content about the cyclones. Not just a glorified list in picture table form. Why drafty though? I think this could be worth having once articles are created for the individual cyclones. So, I have no problem with it being drafted or re-recreated later if (and only if) that happens. But in the meantime, there shouldn't be an article about various subjects where those subjects aren't notable themselves and don't have their own articles. You can't make otherwise non-notable subjects in a topic category notable just by combining them into a single article with a graph. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to draft I think the article *topic* is perfectly fine. At the least in-line with existing articles. But as it stands, it's so incomplete as to be wrong (no cyclones in March? Maybe?). If anyone feels the topic area is a problem, I'd suggest an RfC rather than an AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify. There is absolutely no reason why to delete an article just because it needs a little improvement. I propose that we move this to Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2010 or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/2010 so we can all work on it together. @Robert McClenon:, I'm sorry if I was being harsh and/or violating WP:NPA on your talk page. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 13:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Or maybe convert into a directory to the articles on the various area articles for the year. Look, each of the Atlantic season articles is already pretty big, huge in the case of 2005. A list article for the whole world in a year is just way too big, not to mention duplicative. And I see that someone has created a huge union list of all cyclones for all time, tens of thousands of entries. The whole thing is just make-work . Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as nominator if the intention is that there should be articles at this level of detail in addition to articles on the basins and years. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to Draft space - The idea behind these articles is to provide basic information about tropical cyclones and an overview of the tropics during the year and not go into the individual storm histories. This includes all tropical cyclones within the year The idea is to cover all tropical cyclones that occur and provided basic information within the year, including the ones that are noteworthy and that are or are likely to be retired. For example, Tropical cyclones in 2020 contains details on Herold, Harold, Sarai, Tino, Amphan as well as Vongfong (Ambo), Amanda and Cristobal which are all notable for various reasons. I also hope that these articles will be expanded to include information on the global background and any direct political impacts eg: Covid 19 and the Vietnam war.Jason Rees (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:IMPERFECT is a policy and so is WP:NOTCLEANUP. I find that this is a notable topic and we do not delete notable articles because they are incomplete or they are too much work to update - or because the Wikiproject has not made it a priority to update the page/list. Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Needs to be completed and brought up to existing standards, e.g. timeline should be organized by basin rather than by intensity. I recall it was decided somewhere that applying the Australian scale to all TCs worldwide constituted original research/synthesis. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to draft space would be counter-productive because the main effect of that space is to stop people from finding the page. Its categories would be munged and search engines would not see it. And there's no special staff assigned to work on drafts; they get less attention than articles in mainspace. Draftification is just disruption, adding no value and putting obstacles in the way of improvement. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is I'm not sure the information currently present in the article is even accurate, and if it isn't the article probably shouldn't stay in mainspace. The storm effects section appears to rely on information from the individual season pages, but some of the numbers don't even match. The graphical timeline constitutes original research as the Australian intensity scale isn't applicable outside of the Australian region and the South Pacific. I understand where you're coming from, but personally I'd prefer to move conflicting/invalid information out of mainspace until it can be resolved. In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT I may try addressing these myself if I can find the time. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hink and honestly draft space is kinda pointless in my view at least, considering there's already a defined article. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as people are ready to work on it. JavaHurricane 15:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JavaHurricane: Do you feel that the article, as it is right now, is misleading about the number of Tropical cyclones in March (or any other month for that matter)? Should we have articles that are, on their face, quite so misleading, in article space? Normally I'd suggest we just fix it, but the amount of work involved seems pretty large and it's been in this state for a while. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hobit, I think it isn't really misleading. The tables need expansion, and given people are willing to work on this (myself included), I think this can be kept. JavaHurricane 01:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You don't think someone could reasonably think there were no Tropical cyclones in March of 2010 from the article as it is? Hobit (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I added a tag to expand the section. Now no one will be confused whether the article is incomplete or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I really don't think that's enough, but I appear to be in the minority. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and quickly improve (moved from draftify)I'd really WP:SNOW-close this. Just because an article is incomplete doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Using HotCat, I added it to Category:Tropical cyclone articles needing attention. Seriously, there are over 2.5 million stubs around Wikipedia. Do they need to all be nominated for deletion? No! I've changed from draftify to keep based on Andrew's concerns about drafts, but still, I'm not letting this be deleted. 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 11:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we've only got one person for delete. Can someone SpeedyKeep-close this? 🐔 Chicdat ChickenDatabase 11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: No - have some patience and let the AFD run its course.Jason Rees (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think they would learn from this... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Rome wasn't built in a (half a) week. (It was built in a millenium.[9][citation needed] It won't be that long. Shouldn't be more than a month.) Nor will be this AFD. ~ AC5230 talk 18:20, 12 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 Communist Unity Movement of the Netherlands (Marxist–Leninist). (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Communist League (Netherlands)[edit]

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

Non-notable short lived Dutch communist youth movement. No sources provided. It already is briefly mentioned on its parent organisation's article Communist Unity Movement of the Netherlands (Marxist–Leninist) which seems sufficient. No justification for its own article in my view JohnmgKing (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a preferred alternative to deletion. I could not find significant coverage of this youth wing (in fact, I could not find any coverage, but seeing that it's a historical group I wouldn't object to it being included in it's parent article, I assume that one of the sources there does have at least a trivial mention of this, though I don't speak Dutch so I can't confirm). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 02:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Livadas[edit]

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

G4 speedy declined as the article is significantly different from version deleted in 2016. Procedural nomination. decltype (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks for opening this discussion. The article's insignificant, while it was previously deleted twice for the exact same reason. Not sure why or how it keeps coming back, but as per our investigation within Wiki Greece, it has been revealed that several sock-puppets, associated with the author, are behind its creation. Hope this helps. Delete please. Glucken123 (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. I do see a lot of social media and other primary sources, publisher coverage, author-submitted bios, stores/ecommerce, unreliable blogs, and even some possibly reliable but certainly trivial mentions. There's nothing that meets WP:GNG, however. Woodroar (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some (or perhaps many) of the references are misleading. For example, the Karen Van Dyck (editor of the collection Austerity Measures: The New Greek Poetry) article in The Guardian [10]: Although the collection she edited includes poems by Livadas, nowhere in her article mentions him (but she points on poems by others). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Harper[edit]

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

the sources are very poor and unreliable: 1) is an interview so it doesn't count for proving notability, 2) is a mention related to porn awards (porn awards do not count for proving notability since pornbio was deprecated), 3) it is the winner list of a porn prize, see n.2, 4)IMDb it is not reliable, 5) same interview that in 1, 6) his name doesn't even appear in the page (nor stage name nor real name). I looked for more sources but I couldn't find any. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG with sources in article, and also as a subject of the documentary Naked Fame. I've never seen an article nominated before that exists in 10 other languages! User:Johnpacklambert how doesn't this] establish notability along with the documentary? Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability requires non-trivial coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. The nominator's assessment of the article's sources is correct. None of them qualify. The above link is an interview (primary source) in a blog (unreliable source). RS coverage for Naked Fame itself is thin, and Harper's coverage there is even thinner. As for other editions of Wikipedia, they have their own notability guidelines and many simply translate from en.Wikipedia. Multiple of the other language articles for the subject appear to be such translations, while others don't even cite sources. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BASIC per the nominator's assessment and my comments above. No strong claim for passing WP:ENT without independent RS support. An independent search for sources failed to yield substantial RS coverage. RS coverage is mainly focused on the subject's partner instead, and notability is not inherited. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International University of Leadership[edit]

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

Considering that this is a FOR profit school, it must meet WP:NORG. It does not, however, and was created by an undeclared COI account. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sources are Google Maps, its own website, and the website of the Department of Education of Florida. As such, it fails the general notability guideline. PJvanMill (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some of the sources (including Google Maps), narrows down the low notability of the university. This is because almost every place is on Google Maps, so it really doesn't prove notability. Another source that is in this article that does the same thing is Delta Mu Delta, because many schools are placed on there without any information. So really, none of the sources prove it's lack of notability. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 16:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the individual themselves does not have sufficient coverage to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Ramzan[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this inventor / entrepreneur. Draft declined three times by three separate experienced editors but then moved to mainspace by its author. Refs are almost exclusively about an invention not about the inventor - the inventor is largely peripheral or being interviewed. Reads like paid advocacy. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, inventions typically get mainstream coverage, but that doesn't make the person who invented them notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebanderson (talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, fails WP:GNG, primary sources, passing mentions and interviews with no WP:SIGCOV. Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable person failing WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON with no multiple in-depth reliable independent sources. Given sources focus on the device(s) and not the person/inventor. The few that discuss the person are mostly primary (like their university, interviews, or gallery/competition entries). That said, the CATCH device may actually be notable, but nowhere close to let them pass WP:CREATIVE. Disclaimer: saw discussion when fixing removed AfD banner. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - undisclosed, paid for spam. MER-C 15:01, 13 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 Not Without My Husband. czar 21:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Harun-Mahdavi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP with no credible assertion of notability; created edited by subject's son. Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The woman is a published author in two languages on a topic of interest to the world. The article has been edited by a wide variety of editors, including some very experienced colleagues, since it was first introduced in 2006. As far as I can see, her son, User:Sasan Harun-Mahdavi has made one edit. That edit simply added and linked the name of her husband. As I understand the rules, that is an entirely legitimate action for a person with a COI. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Not Without My Husband, her book: the content of the two articles largely overlaps, and if notable she is notable for the one book. Whether there are any sources to support notability of either article is another matter, but the two articles should be considered together. PamD 14:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Merge per PamD.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've managed to find something of a source, this book, which mentions Not Without My Husband as being a response to another book, Not Without My Daughter. Perhaps this belongs as a mention on that article? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 8 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. I have added the extra citations. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Toranzos[edit]

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

Article lacks in current version notability of reliable source(s), last edit several years ago, only one source, which has only one real google hit, looks self publishing CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article seems self-serving. No notability and no real substance on a Google search. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep ("weak" mostly because I'm not terribly interested in cleaning up the article myself, TBH) The sourcing is wildly inadequate, but he does seem to have some notability. He represented Paraguay at the Venice Bienale in 2013. See [11] This article in Kunstforum covers that exhibit: [12] The only cited source is hard to find, but I think it's [13] Additionally, there is [14] Vexations (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Found this: [15] There is gbook mentions, there is an article in the es wikipedia, which isn't sourced. When you do a search on Google images it comes up with lots of art. I think he is probably notable. scope_creepTalk 08:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:47, 16 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 Golam Faruque Ovi. After merge is complete, may be converted into a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tinni[edit]

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

Non-notable murder victim. According to WP:BIO1E, the general rule is to cover the event, not the person. There is no article about the crime, which received only routine news coverage and does not meet the inclusion criteria for events. Wikipedia is not news. Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. The death of Tinni gets some ongoing coverage as a controversial unsolved murder case with a notable and hard-to-prosecute suspect. As a person however, Tinni is a BIO1E of an actress who was just starting out. Even the press coverage the crime is mostly about the difficulty of bringing the alleged perpetrator to justice. There is no depth to sustain a biographical article. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect she has no notability on her own other than her murder. What is on her page can be merged with the accused's page. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to page of accused. Plausible search term. No need to delete. pburka (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with merge and redirect if that's the ultimate consensus, but note that the dead Syeda Tania Mahbub Tinni arguably isn't the primary topic of the mononym. Another model and actress, Srabosti Dutta Tinni, has commonly gone by Tinni for years, as seen in [16][17][18][19][20][21]. If a page is preserved at Tinni, it should be a redirect to the notable and living person. If we want something useful to pop up in the search box when a reader seeking the dead Tinni types the plausible search term "Tinni", we could create a redirect from "Death of Tinni" or "Murder of Tinni" (not sure what the convention is on naming such events) to the accused. Or, if we think there is no primary topic, the mononym should be a disambiguation page that links to the living person and to the accused. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • A disambiguation link or page makes sense. pburka (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A disambiguation page strikes a reasonable balance. Reasonable search term for multiple subjects, while a merge to the BLP of the suspect puts undue weight on not-yet-proven accusations. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is consensus that the page should not exist in its current form. @Abishe: Considering the discussion above about it being a plausible search term, would it be agreeable to you for any reliably sourced content to be merged to Golam Faruque Ovi, and for the page Tinni to become a disambiguation page? Something along the lines of:

Tinni may refer to:

My reading of the discussion so far is that such a course of action would be supported by Donaldd23, pburka, Gene93k, and myself. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 13 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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Kathmandu[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In countries like Nepal, the money that can make a five-star hotel is big money. It can raise and fell governments. There are plenty of sources, some of them are available online. I will try and rework the article with some of those. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I am done. It's the best I could do with sources available online, but I do believe it's quite enough. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedly Keep many sources and looks good article - BeamAlexander (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is written like advertisment (not that blaming anyone for that but it reflects the sources) and the actual information in the article is trivial coverage that doesnt pass notability standards. Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamant1, you can't be serious!! Also, actual information in the article is trivial coverage that doesnt pass notability standards suggests to me that you are evaluating notability of a topic, indeed the quality of coverage it has, from reading the content of the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be rude, but I dont care about your opinion. People calling out voters and saying they voted how they did because are just doing it wrong or are ignorant to the process are a dime dozen on here. Sorry, but not I'm wasting my time on it. Especially in this case. Nothing personal. If you have a specific question about the vote though id be happy to answer it. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, I have never written about hotels before, so I would not know what would be encyclopedic about a hotel and what would not. But I seriously doubt it's so much like an advertisement to be deserving of deletion. I have shown there is information about this hotel right from the moment it was conceived, and that it has been involved in national level events. I don't know what would be enough if that's not. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few things that come to mind are if the building has historical significance (like it's in a national registry of historic places) or significant regional event like a mass shooting or something that would have appeal with a broad audience. Otherwise, its to local. I'm not sure what "national level events" your referring to, but hearings about it don't count for notability IMO. Lots of companies go through that kind of thing and NCORP specifically says it's considered trivial. Notability guidelines are stricter for companies then other subjects. I'd add details like numbers of rooms to that list. Things like that are extremely MILL run of the mill. All hotels have rooms. So what? It's like saying a band should have an article because they have a drummer. If that were the standard every individual hotel 6 would have an article. Same goes for the rest of the information in the article. Cool the hotel is a 10 mile walk from the airport. So are a million other hotels in the world. There's nothing notable about that and the only reason to include those types of details is for people who might want to stay there. Which is advertising. As no one except a potential costumer would care how long it takes to walk there from the airport. Seriously, Wikipedia isn't a directory, travel guide, or advertising platform. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is an advertisement, it is native advertising and it needs to go. I doesn't incorporate those aspects that you would expect see in a notable building, historical foundations, heritage and so on. scope_creepTalk 00:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article has a reliable source that seems to claim that the hotel's architecture is interesting (Liechty, Mark (21 February 2017). Far Out: Countercultural Seekers and the Tourist Encounter in Nepal. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-42894-9.) If this claim could be expanded on, it might support an argument for keeping. If we did keep the article, it would need drastic pruning: much of it is fluff and the awards section would have to go. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough to be mentioned in various books on Nepal outside of travel guides, and with enough coverage on it in news articles. Hzh (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Eilat[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the nominator has been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 00:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mealshare.org[edit]

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

This is not a notable website. No reliable sources. Wikieditor600 (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the nominator has been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, lacks significant coverage and fails notability guidelines.JohnmgKing (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails WP:GNG as most of the sources cited are primary sources. I tried to improve its notability but there are no secondary independent sources. Delete. ugbedeg (talk) 9:30, 13 June 2020

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

The result was delete. czar 00:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxFr[edit]

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

Not notable. Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Usually I vote keep when there's another language wikipedia article on the topic, but the fr.wiki article doesn't have better sources that th en.wiki one. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the nominator has been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Valliere[edit]

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

Theater actress. I can only find a few passing mentions of her acting in plays, nothing that would suit WP:SIGCOV or satisfy WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The piece in the NYT cited in the article itself actually has very little coverage of Jenny Valliere. She is mentioned in a couple of sentences, along with another actress, as being one of the best paid actresses in the New York Yiddish theaters, and that is it. Searching for additional sources does turn up a few mentions, but these also fall largely on the trivial side, mostly just mentioning her name as an actress involved with certain theaters/productions. There is not much in the way of actual coverage on her, specifically, that would allow her to pass the WP:GNG, or allow any sort of article to be developed beyond the bare-bones stub that its existed as for years. Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's almost a shame! From the sources that mention her it seems she was a cut above your run-of-the-mill actress. I hope someone can dig up a couple biographical articles on her. Mbdfar (talk) 22:02, 9 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. Non-notable Nosebagbear (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Daniel Edwards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT, no reliable sources were found. Antila ✉ 04:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Antila ✉ 04:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Antila ✉ 04:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Antila: I'm not sure how to fix this, but this is the article's 2nd AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Cory. In fact, in 2017 I deleted two articles - both the same - created after that AfD. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE non notable actor. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:57, 8 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. czar 06:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Woman Sleep With Others[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, no significant coverage for notability. Zoodino (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: According to the WP:BAND notability guidelines, the first criteria for a notable band is that it "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." In my article, I cited seven different non-trivial articles that have been written about the band. These articles appear on reliable international news sources such as Yahoo! News, Elle (magazine), and Asian Pop Weekly, as well as Taiwanese websites such as Cast Net (喀報), PC Online (太平洋電腦網), and Searchome 設計家. The majority of these articles are written in Mandarin Chinese. Even though the band is not as popular in the English-speaking sphere, it is highly influential in Taiwan, with its most popular song receiving over 19 million views on YouTube. In addition, the band has won a major award, fulfilling another notability criteria; in 2018, the band won the award for "Best Folk Single" in the Golden Indie Music Awards. Kaodigua (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Mbdfar (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Note that the WP:BEFORE process requires some tolerance of other languages. There is plenty of evidence in sources that are reliable, both in Taiwan and internationally, that this band has gained notice in their country, at a level that satisfies the "coverage" requirements at WP:NBAND. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the band has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources from Taiwan so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 11 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. As a policy point, an SNG is supposed to be an indication or rough rule of thumb that sources exist and that, where sources are shown not to exist then the SNG cannot trump the GNG in the case of a BLP. The strength of particular SNGs varies and, in the case of cricket, which has a massive printed documentation, Google isn't always the definer and members of the wikiproject can reliably be expected to flood any edge discussion with a slew of SNG based keep votes. However, the argument here is that we have an article passing an SNG but failing the GNG. The correct answer in such cases, and what we do elsewhere, where there is not sufficient individual documentation is to create lists to preserve the content until the sources are found. However, no one argued this in the discussion so it's not an option. The solution is for the cricket wikiproject to stand back from blind insistence on the SNG and start with the lists already but I guess there is as much chance of that as there is Stuart Broad getting a standing ovation from an Australian crowd. As I don't see any prospect of a policy compliant close sticking I'm going NC. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audrish Banerjee[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. An AfD discussion is a must. Hatchens (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Does not fail NSPORT - please justify why you feel he fails NSPORT if you can. He has made a single appearance in a first-class cricket match, and therefore passes CRIN. I realize U19 Test matches don't confer notability, but the fact that we are questioning the presence of first-class players who have also played in Youth Tests make me question why this is being put up for deletion. I wonder whether there is information which can be put in about his Youth Test appearance. Once again, if you have trouble with the sources, state this elsewhere in a way that means we don't have to take these to AfD every single time you discover them. There are hundreds of other articles exactly like this - why are you discovering this just now? Bobo. 17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, and a web search turns up nothing either. Zero sources means the topic outright fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG, so it is not notable, and zero sources also mean the content violates the principle of verifiability (of course, it's different if sources are out there but not yet in the article). PJvanMill (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sources have been added. Please in future could you go to the appropriate channels and request sources which you may consider "appropriate" be added before doing something as frivolous as sending to AfD? Or at the very least, familiarize yourself with the subject. Both of you appear to be relatively new to the project. Bobo. 22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Both of you appear to be relatively new to the project is not an argument and would have better been left out. Your characterisation of the AfD process as frivolous also bothers me. Anyway, the three sources currently in the article are barely enough to make an infobox, not enough to write an actual article. This is not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I note below, 52 out of 67 pages just in Category:Bengal cricketers fit the criteria you listed in your justification. It would be much easier to take this issue to the appropriate channels before picking and choosing at random which articles upset. It makes me wonder how people come across it in the first place. Bobo. 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this discussion is to determine if this particular article should be on Wikipedia. The fact that there may be many similar articles does not affect this. Maybe some of those articles should be taken to AfD as well, maybe someone can expand some of them, it certainly sounds like there is a lot of work to be done. But that's a separate issue! We cannot keep this only because there are similar articles, we need to judge this article on its own merits. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe indeed. "Maybe" if you and others could find a way to improve this, and other, article(s) before these are sent to deletion, or find channels whereby it can be done with collaborative work, we wouldn't have to go through this every time. Bobo. 22:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get that it is frustrating to have your work nominated for deletion. And who knows, maybe you'll turn out to be right that this discussion will have the same result as could have been achieved by going to what you call the "appropriate channels". But... this discussion is here now and it won't go away. All you can do now is look for better sources, I'm afraid. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if this had been done in the first place, this conversation would not be necessary. If your annoyance is with the specific sources, take this issue through the appropriate channels in order to find out whether other people can find further sources before deciding the article is unacceptable. Bobo. 22:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've stated that enough times now. We get it. It's beside the point. Also, consider that if the "collaborative" route does not result in good sources being found, you still get an AfD in the end. I get that it sucks for you, but this is how it is. Please stop re-stating your point. Moderately annoyed regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sad thing about frivolously adding articles like this to deletion without actually taking it to appropriate channels before then, is that it doesn't give WP:CRIC members - and others - a chance to find this coverage in order to "improve" an article. It almost definitely exists, it's just that people who send articles for deletion are all too quick to press the "Send to AfD" button without first finding out whether people can find extra coverage. I suggest the user who sent this article to deletion who, once again I point out is suspiciously new to the project, go through channels where more information could possibly be found before sending these to AfD. Otherwise we would be sending thousands of non-English non-Test players for deletion. By my reckoning there are 52 pages out of 67, just in Bengal cricketers, just from letters A - C, which do not have supposedly "adequate" source material. Are we going to just send these all for deletion? And how does this assist the project? I'll be quiet now. Bobo. 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let alone the fact that this article was sent to AfD on the basis of a lie, that the individual "does not pass NSPORT". It seems very strange to me that this only ever happens to articles I have created. Bobo. 21:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After all this time I think we're bored of being told that... in the future when you or Hatchens wish to bring these to attention, instead of sending articles willy-nilly, completely at random, to AfD, could you please mark them for clean-up or bring them to the attention of interested users, or similar? Otherwise you will end up sending 52 articles to AfD just on a whim... The fact that the rationale given by the deleting user is a lie, is beside the point. The deleting user's rationale is that the article fails NSPORT - this is a lie. Bobo. 16:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo What is the point you're trying to make? That something is boring does not make it untrue. Again, you seem to be complaining about the fact that this AfD exists, rather than trying to give an actual argument for this article's inclusion. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "complaining". I'm saying that the deletion rationale is incorrect that the individual fails NSPORT. I'm saying that there are 52 other articles exactly like this one, in this category, let alone the other hundreds of cricketing categories, which contain links to only CI or CA. How was this one come upon? By accident? If the people who are so keen to send something straight to deletion, would take these to the appropriate places to see if these articles could be further worked on, before doing anything else, we won't have to go through this another 51 times. Bobo. 18:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes NCRIC despite nom's false assertions. As no valid reason has been given for deletion, this should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smaryllama Here's a valid reason for deletion: there is no significant coverage, so the subject fails the GNG. This valid reason has actually been given twice: see John Pack Lambert's vote and my initial reply to Bobo's comment. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale given by the user who sent this to AfD is incorrect. That is the whole point. PJ, Hatchens, if you wish to help enhance the encyclopedia, please do so. But don't start protesting when others have spent 16 years doing the same thing and are disappointed when their work is being chopped down at random, based on the lie told in the intro to this AfD. If an article needs more eyes on it, sending it to AfD is just about the silliest way to do it. Bobo. 18:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've written a lot of text on this page, yet not a single meaningful contribution to the discussion. The fact that the nominator made the mistake of linking to NSPORT rather than SPORTCRIT is of exactly zero importance, as is every other objection you've raised. Annoyed regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that came out a bit harsh. Let me phrase it this way: this discussion is about whether this article should be included in Wikipedia. You are constantly trying to make it about something else. Annoyed regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the history of people making decisions which go against subject-specific guidelines, people often forget what they were protesting about in the first place and suddenly change tack. When that protest is based on a terminological inexactitude (a mistruth), sometimes people have to go to a peculiar extent to cover their tracks. Bobo. 19:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this relisting hinges on the sources, can people make their minds up one way or another whether we are consistent please? The thought of having to go through this for every single Ranji Trophy cricketer makes me sad. Don't claim to me that "consensus will change" between now and the time people randomly stumble upon the hundreds of other articles I've ever created precisely this template, and don't tell me I'm wrong for applying ALLORNOTHING when every single argument will be exactly like this because every single other article I've written is based on precisely the same template. It's been five days since anyone raised any kind of objection. Bobo. 06:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NCRIC. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple I've already refuted this rationale in my comment above. Could you explain why you think that NCRIC can save an article that does not pass the GNG? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PJvanMill, you haven't refuted it, you have said why it doesn't matter. To you. To "refute" it means you would have to prove that the individual doesn't pass CRIN, which is untrue. I don't see the point in contributing to an incomplete project. Can you please try to enhance the encyclopedia rather than wanting to chop it down for the sake of it? Once again I point out that the deletion rationale is factually incorrect. Bobo. 10:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why it is not a valid rationale for keeping. I would call that a refutation. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you are wrong in your explanation and leading people up the garden path. Bobo. 11:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I bring you back to my comment about those who try to follow arbitrary, rather than brightline, rules, and then randomly changing tack for no reason. Bobo. 11:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is backed by the WP:SNG guideline, and I've yet to see counterarguments. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I will point out that WP:N absolutely contradicts this guideline which invalidates the guideline either way, thus nullifying both arguments. The fact is that N and GNG directly contradict each other as to whether SSG can be followed. Bobo. 11:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of WP:N is a summary of everything that comes below it, including the WP:SNG guideline. Note that such a summary glosses over some of the finer details, such as what happens when a topic clearly fails the GNG but passes an SNG. The SNG guideline makes clear that an SNG is just a placeholder for the GNG. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note the word "or" in point 1. GNG or SSG in the box to the right. Bobo. 11:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to not have read what I just said. There is really no point in trying to talk to you, I should have stopped long ago. Disappointed regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- this is a stat dump masquerading as a biography. It contains no biographical information. Presenting match scorecards in this way only dilutes information unnecessarily. SNGs only provides a temporary, rebuttable presumption that sources probably exist. The sources themselves are actually necessary. Reyk YO! 12:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am always asking what further biographical information one expects to appear. Any biographical information beyond that which already exists is unnecessary bumf. Bobo. 13:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; as is stands, it seems clear that the subject fails WP:N – zero significant coverage outside of the usual cricket stats sites which, as they contain records for almost everything, cannot be held up as an indicator of notability. Articles compiled exclusively from these sites tend to be as described above – "a stat dump masquerading as a biography" – which will almost always contravene WP:NOTSTATS. Finally, while playing the odd match here and there may be enough for NCRIC, it is a rather poor indicator of whether a subject will meet WP:GNG – the guideline is obviously overly inclusive, and as such should be largely disregarded at AfD (per consensus at this RfC). wjematherplease leave a message... 10:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Delete votes are based on a misunderstanding of how SNG’s work. If you to delete the article, you must prove that he undisputededly fails GNG. This has not been done. Given the time in which this person played and the location they played in, a web search is clearly not sufficient for proving they do not pass GNG. He passes NCRIC, and he is therefore notable unless proven otherwise. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devonian Wombat, your argument is incorrect and misleading. I doubt if Bobo or any of the article's other supporters would support your statement that GNG failure must be indisputably proven. The article itself must demonstrate the subject's notability and may be deleted if it fails to do so. You need to read and understand WP:BASIC within WP:BIO.
BASIC begins by asserting that people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, etc., etc. In this article, the only sentence that provides any indication of notability is the last one which mentions his single match for Bengal (in a national competition?) and that is apparently enough for him to meet the cricket SNG but it is nowhere near enough for GNG because, in terms of BIO, the subject cannot be considered worthy of notice.
The two given sources are statistical although, to be fair, ESPN does often go further and provide a potted biography. The fact that ESPN's entry for Mr Banerjee is statistical only could even be a strong indicator of non-notability. I believe the other site, which I cannot access, is entirely statistical. There is, of course, WP:BEFORE in which point D1 requires a minimum search for sources using Google. I presume the nominator has done this but, if not, then I can confirm that the only finds in my Google search are, in effect, the two sources in the article (WP and its mirrors don't qualify). I was hopeful that the Times of India might have something but it turns out to be a montage of other people called Banerjee which is a common name.
I only visit AFD occasionally and drift into cricket topics if there is a shortage of football ones. My impression is that the cricket SNG is all over the place, certainly in comparison with WP:NFOOTY which is crystal clear. WP:NCRIC requires at least one match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. Sorry, but that is no use at all. First, what exactly is a substantial source; secondly, what is the definition of the sport's highest domestic level; thirdly, though it doesn't apply here, how do you define the highest international standard? I know someone who passes NCRIC (he meets GNG for his activities in another sphere) because he once played for the university team against a county team in an early season warm-up game that is, incredibly, rated first class. Surely NCRIC should follow NFOOTY and declare that the minimum for SNG is a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues? Even then, the subject must still meet GNG.
As this article stands, it is a construal of minor statistical data. As Wjemather, Reyk, Johnpacklambert and PJvanMill have all correctly asserted – there is a minimum of sources, a lack of in-depth coverage, no biographical information and a contravention of WP:NOTSTATS. The only conclusions to be drawn are that the article fails GNG by a distance and someone needs to align the cricket SNG with NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"GNG has to be met"? You say I wouldn't agree wtih that? As I've stated over and over again, N completely contradicts it. If we're using a flimsy "let's just do whatever we want" article with a guideline which completely contradicts another guideline, then I suggest random exclusionism is just exclusionism for exclusionism's sake. Bobo. 08:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NGS, if that is the case then I politely suggest that most of my article creations are inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Like I said on WT:CRIC. Wanna get rid of 'em? Be my guest. As for CRIN matching NFOOTY, it does. Every team sport SNG is precisely the same. Why is it only cricket under attack? No wait... why is it only my articles under attack? If you disagree with what Cricinfo or Cricketarchive say, then, well, fair enough. Find evidence to disprove what they say. Want to expand it with ten pages of pointlessly extraneous biographical information about what they have for breakfast every day? Be my guest. My point, over and over again, is that all other biographical info is extraneous - and I challenge you, and others, to prove me otherwise. Nobody has yet convinced me. Bobo. 08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOOTYN states: "Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." Exactly the same. Bobo. 08:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't the same. The key word is competitive. NCRIC is woolly and doesn't define the sport's highest domestic level. As it stands, friendly matches involving universities meet the criteria. Taking GB alone, surely NCRIC should be limited to test matches and county championship matches (and equivalent national one day competitions)? No Great Shaker (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First-class cricket in England does predate the County Championship... Bobo. 09:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The countries which acquired ICC Full Member status before the 1947 ICC first-class definition are Australia, British Isles, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies. British Isles essentially means England but it is complicated because it includes Wales and has, at times, included Scotland and all or part of Ireland. West Indies is a loose federation for cricketing purposes of various nations in the Caribbean area. South African domestic cricket extended to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). There has been first-class domestic cricket in the British Isles since at least 1697. It is generally agreed that first-class domestic matches were first played 1851 in Australia; 1864 in India; 1864 in New Zealand; 1889 in South Africa; 1865 in the West Indies.
The countries which acquired ICC Full Member status after the 1947 ICC first-class definition are Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ireland. In theory, their first-class domestic cricket began when they were promoted but, in practice, it has tended to be when a suitable first-class domestic tournament could be organised. The dates of these were 1947 in Pakistan; 1988 in Sri Lanka; 1993 in Zimbabwe; 2000 in Bangladesh; 2017 in Afghanistan; 2017 in Ireland. Note that all of these countries staged first-class international matches in earlier years.
Senior domestic first-class competitions include the County Championship, the Ranji Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, etc. Senior domestic limited overs competitions include all List A matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc. Senior individual matches (i.e., played outside organised competitions) are those shown to be important, especially if historically significant, by substantial secondary sources as outlined in Historical sources." Bobo. 08:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting "History of cricket", the 1697 date refers to "..a "great match" played in Sussex in 1697 which was 11-a-side and played for high stakes of 50 guineas a side" - quoting a source by Tim McCann, although Cricket Archive notes 1772 as the first first-class match. Judging by the phrasing of that sentence, it doesn't appear to have changed since it was established, and it does sound like Jack's phrasing. Bobo. 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This editor apparently wants us to prove a negative. That is completely backwards to how things actually work. "You need to prove there aren't any sources" is not an argument.
the other site, which I cannot access, is entirely statistical. There is good evidence that these statistical aggregators copy from each other extensively, making it difficult to regard them as independent for this purpose. Reyk YO! 08:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting and definitely implies collaboration or at least a shared access to primary sources which would suggest mutual assistance. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they just... agree with each other. Shocking, I know. Bobo. 08:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a million years since Jack helped convince me otherwise and to locate so amongst eighteen million conversations is just a forlorn hope. Bobo. 08:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bobo192, just trying here to encapsulate all of the above as I'm getting a bit lost. I returned to this page today because of the statement by Devonian Wombat which can't be right, and my point about NCRIC was secondary. I think I'll concede that rating of cricket matches is complex. The scope seems much wider than football. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; most of this latter discussion, especially regarding the relative standing of historical matches, is way off topic here. Continuance should be taken elsewhere (WP:NSPORTS or WT:CRIC). wjematherplease leave a message... 10:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passing one notability guideline is sufficient. The GNG is and was designed as a catch-all for when a subject-specific notability guideline was missed. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but while some people may insist that SNGs such as WP:NCRIN (WP:NSPORTS) trump GNG, in this case consensus is very much to the contrary. The only sources are indiscriminate statistical repositories and as such this also fails WP:NOTSTATS, which is policy. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as nominator withdrew due to the addition of sources (non-admin closure) Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Obenzinger[edit]

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

I can't find any information on this person besides his website, some mentions on academic websites that he exists, and the fact he wrote a testimonial claiming to be a part of the Columbia 1968 student protests, see here: [22] Obenzinger definitely appears to fail the general notability criteria. He appears to possibly be some sort of academic due to his institutional affiliations and Stanford's School of Humanities and Sciences lists him [23] as "Associate Director, Chinese Railroad Workers in North America Project at Stanford" which is confirmed by that project's page [24]. He appears also to teach at Stanford regarding writing. That doesn't appear to make him a particularly notable academic. Additionally, while he has won an "American Book Award", that appears to be a relatively minor prize and is actually awarded to 10+ people each year, diminishing the significance of Obenzinger winning it. Obenzinger also appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR as well. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an easy pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Without looking hard, here are several reviews of his books.[25][26][27] Additionally, his book American Palestine: Melville, Twain, and the Holy Land Mania has enough citations for a possible (somewhat marginal) pass of WP:NPROF C1. Failure of WP:BEFORE? I do agree that the article is in poor shape. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Many reviews have now been added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I don't believe it's necessary to drag this out any longer. (non-admin closure) Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Parker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and appears to fail the general notability guidelines as well. While he is the chair of the Department of Classics at Stanford [28], that doesn't appear to qualify him under criteria 6 of the academic notability guidelines and he's an associate professor regardless. All of the current citations in the article are affiliated with Parker himself as well. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator's second AfD nomination of classics academics. What does the nominator think of the subject's citation record, which is not negligible for a classicist? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm mainly looking at the sources and what I personally can see. I nominated it for deletion because I didn't see any sources not affiliated with the author and looking about on many websites doesn't provide me with much information on this person being well-known in their field. I'm not particularly certain what you mean. Do you have any sources? Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the scholar link, which you should have done under WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I added nine reviews of his two authored books and one each of three edited volumes to the article. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. (FYI, since there's discussion above about how to find such sources: Many of these can be found by going to jstor.org's "advanced search" page, searching for Parker's name, and clicking the checkbox that limits the search to reviews only.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Black Issues Emerging Scholar recognition tips over the line for me. [29][30] --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under WP:Author and WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Enough reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, strong citation record for a low-citation field gives possible pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:Author.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. I'm going to withdraw this nomination due to the sources presented by User:David Eppstein (non-admin closure) Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher B. Krebs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and doesn't appear to meet any other notability criterions. While he has received the "Christian Gauss Award" which is a national-level honor, the award doesn't appear to be that prestigious. Practically every source I was able to find was either affiliated with Phi Beta Kappa or was a press release from a university that had a member of faculty win or be shortlisted for the award. Obviously, these sources have a pretty strong incentive to play up the significance of the Christian Gauss Award. About the only non-conflicted sources I was able to find was this [31] listing of faculty prizes in English by McGill University, which gives the Christopher Gauss Award a single sentence and this [32] New York Times obituary about a professor M.H. Abrams, which gives a single mention of the Christian Gauss Award about 6 paragraphs in. While I don't doubt that the Christian Gauss Award is significant in its field, it doesn't appear to be on the "highly prestigious" level. While Krebs has certainly worked at and studied at major universities, he doesn't appear to be an especially major academic. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Off to a good citation start for a classics scholar. Maybe WP:Too soon. What does the nominator think about the citation record? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. One doesn't get to even the associate level at Stanford by being a slouch. Negotiatio Germaniae has three reviews on JSTOR [33] [34] [35] as does A Most Dangerous Book [36] [37] [38]. His co-edited volume Time and Narrative in Ancient Historiography: The "Plupast" from Herodotus to Appian has two [39] [40]. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the citation record is not bad for a classicist, with over 150 citations for A Most Dangerous Book and 77 for a journal article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 8 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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Tergin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Fails WP:NPOL. Has tge coverage one would expect for a mayor of a small city. No claim of notability made; and, as one might expect, none shown. John from Idegon (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jefferson City is the capital of Missouri. Unless there has been a massive 180, my understanding was that we keep those articles.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Mpen320: What about being the capital city makes a difference? The criteria is size, the number is 100k. You know...about 57k greater than Jefferson City. John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • From Wikipedia:POLITICIAN: Mayors: Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". I would consider a state capital to be regionally prominent by virtue of its status as the seat of state government and its size compared to cities in Missouri-at-large.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mpen320, I tend to defer to Bearcat's perspective around Mayors and municipal officials where it talks about global prominence. I have tagged him here for his judgement call on this topic. Bkissin (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, we definitely do not grant an automatic notability freebie to a mayor just because the city she's mayor of happens to be capital of its state. A decade ago, when our notability standard for mayors was "50K = automatic inherent notability regardless of how badly written and sourced the article is", there was some support for the idea that state and national capitals could be treated the same way even if their population was below 50K — but that died when the 50K test died, and even that's been dead for more than half of the intervening decade. In 2020, even mayors of state capitals still have to clear the notability bar exactly the same way as any other mayor: namely by writing and sourcing some genuine substance about her political importance. No mayor of any city, state capital or not, gets an automatic inclusion freebie just because it's technically possible to verify that she exists, if the article isn't substantive and doesn't cite enough sourcing to credibly pass NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. There is no special criteria for capital cities of states, especially considering some of these cities are not important at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per rationale given by Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG with sources in article, plus sources like [41] [42] [43]. Mayor of a capital city. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Keep The name is recognizable in Missouri. Jefferson City is small, but it is a state capitol, so punches above it's weight. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Solid arguments have been made that the specific article subject meets GNG requirement, while the delete comments are little more than generic positions that mayors of this city are not likely to be notable, which are of no value and should carry no weight in assessing the specific case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:49, 16 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 Glossary of biology#extracellular. Welcome to merge from page history. Article under discussion could not be deleted because its contents have been merged to extracellular space and therefore its page history must be kept for attribution purposes. czar 01:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extracellular[edit]

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

This article violates WP:NAD, and the encyclopedic content on it is better placed at Extracellular space. Tkondrashov (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Glossary_of_biology#E, where it is defined. Adjectives don't make for good articles, but pointing the reader to the definition in a glossary is a good outcome for what is surely a plausible search term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 07:58, 12 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 Glossary of biology#I. Sandstein 11:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intracellular[edit]

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

As per WP:NAD, this is not an encyclopedic article. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." Tkondrashov (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see how this could ever be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Glossary_of_biology#I, where it is defined. Adjectives don't make for good articles, but pointing the reader to the definition in a glossary is a good outcome for what is surely a plausible search term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 07:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but support renaming to intracellular environment - the article should be updated to be a biophysical perspective which remains important. Emerging findings in the field of phase separation suggest that this couldn't be adequately explained in different articles. There are fundamental biophysical implications of intracellular as opposed to extracellular and this article can be a jumping point given the changing topology I would have agreed with you a few years ago but I don't think the present state of science agreed with you. PainProf (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-biophys-121219-081629,https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-019-0341-6 phase separation between intracellular compartments, maybe a more accurate title would be the intracellular environment which is what I think this article is about. The article could reflect these properties and others including the concepts of membraneless organelles, local heterogeneity (calcium spikes, pH gradients) These aren't particularly well explained by cytosol which refers to the liquid content, the cytoplasm which excludes the nucleus which is the nucleoplasm. PainProf (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect It is dictionary definitions, spun up to be an article. Redirect would be ideal. scope_creepTalk 08:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Glossary_of_biology#I per Mark viking's suggestion as a valid search term. Hzh (talk) 11:13, 16 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. czar 01:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs written by Tina Turner[edit]

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

The Category:Lists of songs by songwriters is not greatly populated, so I don't know what criteria is required for an musician/songwriter to need such a list. Turner has written only a handful of songs (relatively speaking), mainly for songs she sang herself, is not known as a prolific songwriter along the lines of Babyface or Holland, Dozier, Holland. I guess the question is should such lists be allowed to be created for any songwriter, and it's just up to authors to create them to more fully populate the parent category or should a line be drawn somewhere? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of these articles are at Category:Production discographies, and as far as I understand it, there's nothing stopping any musician from having a songwriting list, as long as the subject is notable, there's enough content, and the parent article is long enough that the info wouldn't be better suited as just a subsection. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that she is mostly known as a singer, and not a songwriter, doesn't make the list less valid. It's a list that is long enough to be notable in itself. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The list has a paragraph at the top with sources explaining why Tina Turner's songwriting career is notable. That's a lot more than what most list pages have. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP You can't destroy a list because you like categories better, there actually a rule for that. Enough of these songs have their own article to justify a list of them. Dream Focus 00:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see any guideline suggesting that this list should not be on Wikipedia. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should not have been nominated. scope_creepTalk 00:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 01:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Malone[edit]

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

Failure of WP:ENT and WP:CS: Completely unsourced for over a decade (except for one mention from a local paper added four months ago), with no claim(s) of significant roles in any notable films or television shows, nor a large fan base. I was unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability, aside from web pages mentioning the actor's existence. The fact that these issues have persisted for twelve years and that there has been almost no changes from the very first version of this article should be evident enough that this actor should not have a Wikipedia article. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I did some research as I had admittedly not heard of this actor before, but his IMDb and other reference provided in the article seems to check out. I do believe this article could use some additional citations, but I don't believe that it is necessary to delete this article. This actor clearly has put in work in the entertainment industry and has been published, with his talents written about. With that many film credits under his belt, I say keep. Michelle Lanette (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR. Just appearing in various obscure and unnotable films and videos isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and allow for recreation in draft space. I feel like he's borderline notable considering how many roles he has had, but I couldn't find any sources about him other then copies of the Wikipedia article everywhere. It might just be to soon though. Maybe he will have a breakout role eventually that will get some coverage or there's sources I wasn't able to find. I find it hard to believe he would be in that many films and an MTV show without there at least being an interview or two out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "BLAISEBEATZ BREAKS DOWN 5 STANDOUT RECORDS FROM HIS DISCOGRAPHY". Culture custodian. Retrieved 8 June 2020.
  2. ^ "Adekunle Gold drops Visuals for "Something Different"". Bella Naija. Retrieved 8 June 2020.
  3. ^ "Cartel Boss, Tekno comes through with a new tune tagged "Suru", produced by Blaise Beatz to round up the year 2019". Tooxclusive. Dec 20, 2019. Retrieved 8 June 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_June_8&oldid=963481871"