Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 March	12 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Tauras[edit]

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

Seems to be a redux of a non-notable musician who doesn't meet enwiki's notability standards... TJH2018 talk 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and WP:SALT no notability whatsoever ands serves as little more than a vanity page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, looks like an advert and does not meet notability standards. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 23:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orSpeedy Delete and of course WP:SALT per GPL93. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article was already deleted once this year. Nothing has changed to merit keeping it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable entertainer. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Not notable, Nothing changed since it was once deleted. Alex-h (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kenneth Martin[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing either WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE. His only notability claim as an actor is a single role in a TV series, and his sole notability claim as a filmmaker is winning an award at a minor film festival, neither of which is an instant inclusion freebie: NACTOR calls for multiple major roles, not just one, and CREATIVE calls for top-level film awards on the order of TIFF or the Canadian Screen Awards, not just any small fry award that exists. None of this is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be much better sourced than this. Note that the first discussion is not definitive, as it was conducted 12 years ago and Wikipedia's notability standards have been tightened up considerably since 2008. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article for a non-notable actor. Does not pass WP:CREATIVE nor WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I could not find anything online to substantiate notability - just a lot of social media by the actor themself. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, however it seems that nothing has changed since 2006. Netherzone (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any sourcing while searching using the name Andrew Kenneth Martin.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the subject also goes by the name of "Andrew Martin"—I saw him in an episode of Air Crash Investigations and he was credited as such, and he has two separate imdb pages. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that even the self-published résumé on Andrew Kenneth Martin's own website doesn't claim or list any of the credits present in the "Andrew Martin (VIII)" profile on IMDb. So you need much more than just "I saw him" as a source for the claim that the two profiles are for the same person, if he doesn't even claim that about himself. And even if they were the same person, merely having one or more IMDb profiles is not a notability freebie in the absence of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bearcat, I'm not implying that having two profiles confers any notability. I'm not actually voting on this AfD, either. I simply left my comment so that others may search under both names for the purposes of determining whether the notability standards have been met. If, however, others choose not to believe that the two profiles are for the same person, that is their prerogative—but it can be easily verified by anyone who has access to the Air Crash Investigation episode. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is currently sourced to IMDb and his personal website. This means we have no reliable sources, let alone a reliable source that shows that the two IMDb pages are actually on the same person. If IMDb lists this one person as two people, this is a sign of why we need to rely way less than we do on IMDb (we have lots of articles only sourced to IMDb, despite that being a total violation of policy).John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, Can't find significant coverage , the article looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither of the two sources are reliable and a search doesn't come up with enough to put Martin above the WP:GNG threshold. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Vetrivel[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not reliably sourcing any strong pass of WP:CREATIVE. The only notability claim in evidence here is that he and his films exist, and the only cited source is a 65 word blurb nominally confirming that one of the films was planned but not saying anything substantive about it or him to verify that they would pass our notability criteria. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much better than this, and I can't find anything better. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCREATIVE, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with above points; fails WP:CREATIVE due to lack of sources/notability. TheAnayalator (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LitwareHR[edit]

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

The article does not do a very good job at describing exactly what this was, as it is written more like an advertisement than anything else, but from what I can gather, it was simply a piece of sample software that Microsoft put out in order to promote and give guidance on developing SaaS projects. Regardless of my lack of knowledge of the concept, it does not appear to have anything in the way of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Of the four references currently included, two are simply pages from Microsoft's own website, and the other two are not from reliable sources. Searching for additional references turned up very little, and none of what did come up appear to be from reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I prodded this last October because it is a piece of ‘fictitious software’ and I could not find decent refs for it. Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably not notable enough to warrant it's own page. It might deserve a mention on the SaaS article. Mbdfar (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Lands Company[edit]

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

A non notable company with nothing online except for primary sources and republished press releases. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've expanded the article somewhat, adding two references (and an additional potential reference) in the process. There appear to be a number of other news and book references available, based on search results from Bing and Google. Mind matrix 14:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's significant coverage about the company itself including Managing Government Property Assets, the RENX article, and Environment and Planning. Given the scale of this organization I'm sure more can be found. Huge number of incidental references are also out there, definitely more than "primary sources and republished press releases". -M.Nelson (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per above comments. Mallardsfan19 (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comment by M.nelson. – BrandonXLF (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jumeirah Lake Towers. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jumeirah Business Center Towers[edit]

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

A non notable construction project with zero secondary coverage online. The only hits I could find were for websites trying to sell office space Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for "Jumeirah Business Center" in Proquest US Newssources found two 2006 Knight Ridder Tribune Business News items and three 2009 Business Wire items, all with trivial coverage. Searching for the same term found nothing in the NY Times or EBSCO Masterfile. However, searching for "Jumeirah Business Center" in Google does find a number of hits, but nothing that I could find that was WP:RS or non-trivial. Cxbrx (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable development/buildings in Dubai. As an alternative to deletion there is room for a merge at the target Jumeirah Lake Towers Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst: Were you able to find non-trivial coverage, ideally in multiple WP:RS sources? I tried hard and was unable to find anything. Cxbrx (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Nakod[edit]

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

Article fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. A search found no significant coverage by independent reliable sources. All of the listed citations are only single mentions in group performances. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was only able to find passing mentions of the subject ("and Rajendra Nakod on tabla") in the majority of the links I found. No WP:SIGCOV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major achievements or works to become notable. The references are just passing mentions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MIDI. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MIDI 1.0[edit]

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

MIDI is certainly notable, but there's no demonstration of why MIDI 1.0 is independently notable sufficient to require a separate article. Notable, relevant, encyclopaedic information about MIDI 1.0 can be covered sufficiently in the MIDI article.

The article consists entirely of dense technical information, and mostly of long tables of technical data. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia (see WP:NOT). We should serve a general readership (see WP:TECHNICAL). Additionally, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

WP:NOTMANUAL also applies - most of the data in these tables comprises reference material useful for people working with MIDI (for example someone looking to check which CC number sends a Portamento On/Off message) but no one else. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

The article has very few sources, which is a fundamental requirement of Wikipedia (see WP:CITE). It is composed almost entirely of uncited original research (see WP:OR).

Let's redirect it to MIDI.

I think this article is a good example of a general problem with music technology articles on Wikipedia - they overwhelmingly consist of uncited technical information with little real encyclopaedic content. Popcornfud (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MIDI. This could perhaps have been dealt with outside AfD as a merge or a bold redirect, but there is a valid deletion criterion: WP:NOTMANUAL. This page looks like a MIDI 1 technical manual, and Wikipedia is not a manual. Instead of deleting and redirecting, suggest the closing admin just create a redirect, preserving page history should anyone wish to merge any content in the future (although not much would be suitable for merging, which is why I don't propose merge). -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sirfurboy, FYI, I did create a Talk page discussion a few days ago and considered boldly redirecting, but erred on the side of caution and nominated with a 7-day deletion nomination instead. It was reverted as another editor felt it required discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks. that is all fine then. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MIDI, as per mostly WP:TECHNICAL and the others listed above. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 22:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MIDI - per all above. Pavlor (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for what's it worth, this page and its long, dense tables of information have been very valuable to me for the past few days as i've been engaged in writing code so that an old MIDI keyboard would work with a new system. All the relevant information from the MIDI 1.0 standard is neatly summarised in one page which i keep open in a single tab instead of having to scroll through multiple separate pages if i had to reference the actual printed standard. It'd be a shame to see it go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.72.209 (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MIDI - per the rest. I appreciate the fact that the page has been useful to the above IP editor, but that is not sufficient evidence of the page being notable on itself. --MrClog (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MIDI - Not notable on it's own. Analog Horror, (Speak) 14:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty Mile[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm not sure why this mining property deserves its own article. Biscuit3413 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Biscuit3413 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The key to getting this into Wikipedia would be to write an article that said substantially more than "this exists, the end", and reference it to a lot more reliable source coverage than just a directory entry and a glancing namecheck of its existence in one table of a 15-page paper on the magmatism of the entire cordillera. We are not an indiscriminate directory of everything that merely exists. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign that this meets GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Störm (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Steel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED specifically says that mentions in WP:RS will make a listed company pass WP:GNG, merely being listed does not inherently give notability. All of the mentions about this company are press release style mentions or promo pieces i.e failiing WP:CORPDEPTH. Without independent sources, this is not notable enough. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur that coverage is limited to press releases and their rewrites. Recent, boring business type that rarely generates coverage. Might be notable in a hundred years if it survives and becomes a historical landmark... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Might be notable in a hundred years if it survives and becomes a historical landmark'? Let's be serious, this is an encyclopedia! No chance for someone to fix and improve this article? Kent Warfield (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple independently published sources of presumed reliability are showing, making this a GNG pass, IDONTLIKEIT arguments notwithstanding. Boring? Yep, so what? Carrite (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Buried in all the crappy promo pieces and press releases there seems to be a few legitimate articles with decent coverage. Glendoremus (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Glendoremus There are five sources, whihc of them are legitimate articles? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 07:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the article now. These seem legit: here, here, here, here, and here. I'd be happy to reconsider if you show me that these are unreliable sources or press releases. Glendoremus (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I worked on this article and had added 4 references to it in January 2018. Just now I rechecked them – two references that are still working are from Dawn (newspaper) and The Express Tribune newspaper. Two references have gone dead which sometimes happens as we all know that edit Wikipedia. They can easily be replaced by the (4) Pakistan Today newspaper and The Express Tribune newspaper references suggested above by Glendoremus. All these major English-language newspapers are considered 'Reliable Sources' by Wikipedia, and Wikipedia guidelines encourage us to use newspapers sources. I thought a 'press release' is something put out by the company itself, not business news coverage of the company itself by the MANY independent newspapers which is the case here. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are put out by the company but sometimes picked up and printed nearly verbatim by some less reliable news sources. I guess it would be easy enough to check by comparing with the press release on the company website. Glendoremus (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Low participation, no outstanding delete votes. Happy to be renominated if warranted. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 21:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of summer toboggans[edit]

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

per WP:NOTDIR. None of these are notable. --Pontificalibus 10:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or merge~~- Keep, or at the very least merge back into Summer toboggan. It cannot be said that none of the content is notable, since it is existing content that has been merged from two previously existing articles Mountain coaster and Alpine slide, and directly relates to them. Now that they have been merged into a single article it could be argued that the list should be there also; however, as evidenced by the corresponding German list de:Liste_von_Sommerrodelbahnen there is much more worldwide content that could be added.

The current size of Summer toboggan is 10Kbytes. Merging the full German list would increase its size to be in the region of 120Kbytes, which is well over the limits in WP:LENGTH#Readability_issues.

Update: Following the guidelines at WP:LISTCRUFT, the list is an extract from an article which already exists; it is not listcruft according to paragraph 2. It obviously needs expanding and references added, but even as it stands the subject matter (a list of major worldwide public facilities) should be notable. The only way that this list could qualify as WP:NOTDIR is point 7 (although it is not just a simple listing without context). Or, if it is not notable enough, then neither is for example List of aquaria or many of the other lists at List of tourist attractions.

Threefoursixninefour (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of generation VII Pokémon#List of Pokémon. Sandstein 08:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incineroar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG per concerns raised by User:Sergecross73. Reads like a FANDOM Wiki page without any indication of significant coverage. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Hunter Kahn 14:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the nomination echoes my initial concerns I raised without response. It reads like a fan wikia and is sourced to unreliable or first party sourcing. Even with some better sourcing I still feel it would fail the WP:POKEMON test. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It can be argued that especially with the character being featured prominently in the games, in the anime, and other media (like the incredibly popular Super Smash Bros. series) that the character is notable enough for an article, with sources backing this up. Additionally, the character's controversial reveal to the Pokémon franchise, and subsequently its controversial reveal for its inclusion in the Super Smash Bros. franchise, were both covered by various reliable sources (which I'm currently working on incorporating into the article.) Nonetheless, Incineroar is featured in Pokémon-related and non-Pokémon media alike, and is more relevant of a character than various other Pokémon species that have pages. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Added two more sources and expanded the Reception section a bit more.~~ Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Added SIX more sources expanded the sections of "Reception" and "In video games" a lot more. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of a similar discussion on Greninja (@Steel1943 and Onel5969: who voted to keep Greninja as a redirect and @Tavix: who voted to keep the Greninja article), and @BrawlersintheZone: who helped create the Incineroar article. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you outline which ones in particular you believe are helping it meet the WP:GNG through significant coverage from reliable sources? I’m still seeing a lot of passing mentions and unreliable sources... Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a lot of sources that would never seriously pass muster. Nothing that is specifically about the character (they are about Smash Bros Ultimate and happen to mention Incineroar)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Current version fails GNG. Maybe Draft the current version and make a new redirect if those who want to keep it think it has the potential. TTN (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the sources identified and improvements made by Paintspot and Toughpigs make it very obvious this article passes the WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 16:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ZXCVBNM's assessment of the sources -- "Nothing that is specifically about the character (they are about Smash Bros Ultimate and happen to mention Incineroar)" -- appears to be inaccurate. Four of the sources mention Incineroar in the headline:
- "Smash Bros. Ultimate Adds Ken And Incineroar To The Roster" (Gamespot)
- "Super Smash Bros. Ultimate nearly featured Decidueye instead of Incineroar" (Eurogamer)
- "Incineroar Was Voiced by the Now Deceased Professor Oak Voice Actor" (Nintendo Soup)
- "Sakurai on Smash Bros. Ultimate – why Incineroar was chosen and more" (Nintendo Everything)

Based on this, I think the sources demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Nintendo Soup and Nintendo Everything are not reliable sources. They’re both self-published, amateur fan blogs. And the other sources absolutely do not show significant coverage. For example, your GameSpot source has a mere 3 sentences on Incineroar itself. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing exists to demonstrate notability for a Wikipedia article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the expanison, this is worthy of being kept instead of deleted so well done Paintspot. HawkAussie (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as Keep, relisted after complaints from nominator to run for an additional week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a non-notable video game and media character failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. None of the significant sources are about the character, they are about individual games adding the character and other characters to their roster. These are all usable sources for those facts, but this is not significant coverage of the topic itself as required by GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. This is all just routine reveal news and announcement hype with no lasting notability. I do not agree at all with the above assessment that the controversy at release, appearance in multiple media, the character's name appearing in source titles, the fact that sources exist or that the article was expanded somehow satisfy notability criteria. Disclaimer: saw the discussion mentioned on VG talk. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed the newly-added sources, but came to same conclusion. All are incidental or passing coverage of the subject matter and not significant coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. As shown earlier, Incineroar is notable and passes WP:GNG. However, the page definitely needs to be rewritten. Also, some sources on Incineroar outside of Super Smash Bros. would definitely be good to have. Invalid ^OS _talk 15:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpicyMilkBoy provided excellent analysis of the sources that have caused me to change my !vote to redirect, as it fails the WP:GNG. As a Pokemon, it should be redirected to List of Generation VII Pokémon#Incineroar. Invalid ^OS _talk 13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

- I mean, no ones even established notability. They WP:BOMBARDed the article with some unreliable sources and trivial passing mentions, and then all just started echoing WP:ITSNOTABLE over one another, ignoring requests to actually outline which sources are reliable and provide significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - InvalidOS It's good to hear you feel the subject definitely passes notability standards, but since we have an editor in Paintspot who has made improvements and I believe has expressed interest in continuing to do so, I strongly disagree that the article is in such poor shape that it needs to be destroyed before it can be improved. There is no deadline for improvements such as these. — Hunter Kahn 15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Paintspot Comment. I've not done much searching at all on this subject because it seemed that you and Toughpigs are already on it, but I'll toss a couple of sources your way in case they are helpful in future expansions: [1] [2] [3] [4]. — Hunter Kahn 15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - These fall under the same sort of issues already mentioned. Businesswire is a press release, so it’s not third party coverage that counts towards the GNG, and a Student-run Newspaper isn’t really a RS either. The others are more short listical entries about Pokemon. There’s very little that helps here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Sergecross73, you have made your opinion about the outcome of this AFD extremely clear, to the point that you helped complain to the closing admin to get this relisted despite a clear WP:CONSENSUS toward keeping. Please read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and consider attempting to resist responding to every individual point you disagree with in the future. — Hunter Kahn 15:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Its not bludgeoning to respond to newly presented sources, which is two of my three responses today prior to this response. There’s also nothing wrong with politely requesting a relist on an AFD close, which was honored after one simple comment. Please don’t attempt to twist this to misconduct on my part. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The AfD was - quite obviously - closed prematurely, as the numerous comments here can attest. There was no "clear consensus" and any attempt to suggest as such is laughable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Zxcvbnm No it was not. It was closed after one week, which is extremely customary, and it was closed with a Keep result after a majority of the participants argued in favor of keep, which is also an extremely customary result. You complained, which is your right, and the closer re-opened it, which in my view was the incorrect course of action. Now it's been reopened after having been previously closed, which unfortunately makes the earlier consensus appear tainted and makes it much more likely for new voters to vote against it. You have helped to upend consensus and taint this whole process, which is unfortunate, but it is what it is. — Hunter Kahn 02:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Deriving a consensus isn’t just counting votes, like you’re describing. It’s about reviewing and weighing the various stances according to policy. It’s pretty clear that the initial keep comments are little more than WP:ITSNOTABLE votes that didn’t specifically outline how the GNG was met. No one could identify significant coverage either, despite directly being asked. One of the keeps doesn’t even seem to know what the GNG is. Your response sounds like sour grapes and nothing else. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to think your argument is wrong. In any event, the AFD is ongoing again, and this discussion is adding nothing to that conversation, so I see no reason we need to continue it. Thanks. :) (Incidentally Sergecross73, do you have any thoughts as to whether my expansions and the sources I've added to the article help satisfy WP:GNG now?) — Hunter Kahn 02:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        As I mention below, your rewrite does nothing to actually address notability concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or delete, whichever): the sources are extremely poor, being almost all primary. These can be used, of course, but should be sparingly and backed by reliable secondary independent sources wherever possible. This has not been done; the topic fails to demonstrate the most basic requirements for passing WP:GNG. ——SN 54129 15:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The Reception section does not have much in the way of substantial examples of notability. I could see them being used as supplementary, but they're weak as support beams for the article. A lack of information on creation is also a big oof. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite. I feel Incineroar is iconic enough to have a designated article. A Pokémon like Pikachu is well known through a couple of franchises, not just Pokémon itself. Incineroar, be it not as well know as Pikachu, meets this criterion. The current article that exists is rather messy, but I'm sure some of the information can be retained. I reccoment looking at other designated Pokémon article for a base structure. --Diriector_Doc┝^{Talk
Contribs}━━━┥ 17:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails to establish notability. Most of the sources this article uses are either primary, unreliable, or press releases. There's very little to even use here. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There isn't much wrong with the primary sources in the article. They seem to comply with WP:PRIMARY:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care [...] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

--Diriector_Doc┝^{Talk
Contribs}━━━┥ 20:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:GNG. Primary sources can’t be used to prove notability. I’m pretty sure that’s the point he’s making. They’re usable in a general sense, but they don’t factor in to AFD discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Primary sources can be used here and there in articles, but when like more than half of the page uses primary sources, that is when it becomes a problem. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would think this could eventually be an article of its own in the future but for now there does not seem like enough reliable sourcing for it to warrant its own page. GamerPro64 21:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to so many comments above about the lack of secondary sources, the dependence on primary sources, and the state of the current article, I've decided to do a minimal amount of expansion work to this article, not so much adding new content per se (though I can see from my searches there is the potential for more to be added) but rather to provide secondary sources to the existing content here and alleviate some of the concerns raised in this AFD. Please note this is NOT intended to represent the full extent of sources out there about this character (hell, I didn't even add all the sources that have been pointed out in this AFD), but just enough to source what's already there and to show the article passes WP:GNG. Additional improvements can be made in the future, but I'm hoping what's been done so far will be sufficient to address some of the concerns raised by users like GamerPro64, Namcokid47, Abryn, InvalidOS, Serial Number 54129 and others. — Hunter Kahn 22:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~Pinging the folks you mentioned - @GamerPro64, Namcokid47, Abryn, InvalidOS, and Serial Number 54129:. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

How many times will I be pinged? GamerPro64 23:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shoot, so sorry - hadn't realized that they actually pinged you / that the template that they used ("{{U}}") also pings people. My bad, didn't mean to ping you when User:Hunter Kahn had already used a template that had pinged you. Sorry. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m getting some severe WP:BOMBARD vibes here. Rather than demonstrating how the GNG is met, you’ve bloated the article up with unreliable sources, fansites, and cruft. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks Serge, for responding, yet again, with your previously-voiced opinion. — Hunter Kahn 03:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)~~ (Just want to say I apologized on my talk page to a few editors here for my tone yesterday, which stemmed more from real-life issues with me than anything here. — Hunter Kahn 23:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

”Previously voiced”? That was my first comment on the rewrite you did mere hours ago... Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I am taking this conversation off my watchlist and will not be participating in the discussion or responding to inquiries any further. I believe this particular AFD has not been handled well (I voiced my opinion earlier that a consensus was established and largely overturned because a few editors were unhappy with the outcome, which I understand others disagree with) and I unfortunately believe the conversation is now tainted, with little chance of reaching a clear consensus, and I don't believe that good faith efforts to establish notability are likely to be acknowledged by certain participants. I admit my frustration with this process has at times led me to taking a tone that has been less than helpful, so I think it best that I just walk away altogether. — Hunter Kahn 03:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find that to be a pretty petty and immature way to handle a discussion like this. Nobody here is being biased, I don't where you got that idea from. I agree with Serge and others that have said it lacks notability, lots of the sources that were added are just fluff to pad out the article and made it look better from a visual standpoint and not one based on the actual content. Given this character's popularity I won't be surprised if he gets more coverage in the future, but for the time being I don't think this page fits the notability critera. Still a concerning amount of primary sources and fan-created content which is not suitable for a Wikipedia page. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 03:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Still going to try to bow out of this conversation, but a point of factual correction to the above: there are no primary sources in this article anymore. All have been removed. And none are fan-generated either; all are secondary sources. The reliability of some could be debated, though in the past most if not all have been considered acceptable for subject matter like this, but that's another debate altogether. To continue to maintain that the article relies on primary sources is simply inaccurate. — Hunter Kahn 05:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC) )[reply]

Redirect. Sources are mostly unreliable. International Business Times is generally unreliable per WP:RSP; The Inquisitr seems to be a clickbait site that publishes hard hitting journalism like "Miami Bombshell Genesis Lopez Bares Her Curvy Booty In A Tiny String Bikini"; Geek.com and Nintendo Insider are blogs; United Press International publishes press releases, etc. The citations to reliable sources, such as [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], do not provide significant coverage: they are passing mentions, discussing the character for two or three sentences at most. Polygon devotes two paragraphs to the character, but that alone is not enough to make it notable, and those two paragraphs are rather chatty and bloated anyway. The sourcing is insufficient to pass GNG. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I know many of the redirect votes have come in direct response to this, but I respectfully think this analysis is off-base. Sites like Geek.com, Inquisitr and UPI have been generally considered acceptable for topics like this in past RS noticeboard discussions, and while I generally consider IBT unreliable for controversial or complex newsy topics, video games don't really fit that bill. But even if you threw all of them away, you'd still be left with coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. And the fact that several of the reliable sources only mention it in a sentence or two shouldn't be taken as a strike against notability, because again, I didn't arbitrarily add sources with long mentions just to demonstrate notability. I added sources to back up the specific facts that were uncited in this article. Sometimes I used a source with only a sentence or two because that sentence or two cited that specific fact. We don't do a sentence count in sources to determine notability, that's just not how it works, and the wide amount of coverage in multiple sources (despite various lengths) still speak to significant coverage in the WP:GNG guideline. Honestly, given the shape of the article now, as well as the other sources that have been identified in the AFD, I'm really surprised so many people still don't feel notability has been established... — Hunter Kahn 23:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't arbitrarily add sources with long mentions just to demonstrate notability. - Fair enough, but it would be helpful if you could provide links to such sources in the AfD discussion. I searched for sources on the WP:VGRS search engine and Google News, and the most in-depth coverage I could find in RS was the Polygon article I linked above, which is not very substantial. Regarding reliable sources, I think we should hold sources to a higher standard when evaluating whether or not something passes GNG. It may not be a big deal if some minor, uncontroversial detail is cited to a clickbait site, but I don't think we should judge a subject's encyclopedic notability based on sites that publish articles like "Jayden Federline Promised To Share Gossip About His Mom, Britney Spears" or "Suzy Cortez Squats It Out In Gold Heels And Revealing Red Thong". SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect SpicyMilkBoy's analyze of the sources is spot on. I additionally endorse the reversal of the original Keep close, which was primarily based around the addition of PRIMARY sources and UNRELIABLE sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—others above have already picked apart the sources but I concur with their assessments of the threshold of notability not being met as of yet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This could very well become an entry in the List of generation VII Pokémon, in a similar fashion to Oshawott. Some sources are not reliable enough and the "reception" section is poor, in general. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From the discussions that have taken place, here are the prime arguments:

Incineroar is iconic enough to have a designated article.
The current article has many sources, most of them primary.
- Some arguments suggest that the use of primary doen't justify notability.
- Others say that these ources are completely fine.
The current article may or may not compy with WP:GNG. This argument is back-and-fourth.
The use of citations is a possible WP:BOMBARDMENT.

This list shouldn't change anyone's mind about things. These just seem to be the main concerns.--Diriector_Doc┝^{Talk
Contribs}━━━┥ 03:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that primary sources contribute to GNG needs to be abandoned by anyone stating it. WP:GNG is very clear that sources must be reliable, secondary and independent. This list of "prime arguments" is a little misleading since it echoes your own Keep !vote. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 19:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to point out again that the article used to depend on primary sources, but those are all gone now. I understand that there have been questions raised about the reliability of some of the new sources used, but all of them are secondary sources now, not primary. — Hunter Kahn 19:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability of the topic is not affected by what's in the article. It is the existence of GNG-compatible sources that matters, not the article contents. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A paid staff member of Polygon [10] gave significant enough coverage, plus other sources mention it. Dream Focus 03:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Polygon article has already been brought up, first and foremost. The two paragraphs, as SpicyMilkBoy has stated, are bloated and chatty. It doesn't constitute notability. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 04:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know why you consider what the woman wrote to "bloated and chatty", I not seeing it that way at all. She gave significant coverage of the character, talked about it and her opinions of it. Significant is context not length. Dream Focus 10:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two paragraphs is not significant coverage even if the context of the article wasn't just news about a video game getting multiple new characters. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point is that the two paragraphs ramble off-topic and say little actually about the subject itself. I mean come on, are you really proposing keep based off two paragraphs of content in one source. I know you skew heavily on the Keep side, but even you must realize that’s pretty flimsy argument to keep an article... Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The character gets headlines and some mention at [11] and other reliable sources. I look at how much information is in article, and it has references aplenty, so I say keep it. I also find it odd that this AFD originally ended in KEEP then someone complained and it got reopened so those who want it done can keep arguing with people who dared disagree with them. Dream Focus 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you just contradicted your own statement with "some mention", because that's all this article really boils down to; random mentions in articles for other games, and unreliable blogs or sketchy "journalist" sites. This article is just full of useless fluff to try and bloat it and make it look better than it really is. Seems to be working, since people are now just trying to yell WP:ITSNOTABLE despite their arguments being picked apart and proven false by other editors. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 19:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        First off, there’s nothing wrong with asking someone to relist an AFD. There’s literally an official process for it - WP:DELETIONREVIEW - but starting off with just asking the closer is equally fine. (And they were not harassed, I asked them once, politely, and it was immediately honored.) Secondly, I don’t know how you could possibly argue that a relist wasn’t warranted in a situation where 10+ new participants joined in after the relist, a vast majority with a stance different from the close. Look, you’re free to want to keep the article, but this misconduct stuff you seem to be passive-aggressively alluding to is pretty inappropriate, especially for an experienced editor as yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Re: the sources, WP:GNG only requires that sources have to be non-trivial coverage, they don't have to focus exclusively on the subject. The policy specifically says "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". I do feel a lot of the reliable sources that discuss this topic have been too easily dismissed, and too much has been made about how many sentences/paragraphs/etc some of the sources use to address this topic. That's really not how the policy is meant to be interpreted. — Hunter Kahn 22:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, that’s where the aspect of consensus comes in, because that’s what the “redirect stance” people are saying, that what little coverage is from reliable sources, is trivial. That two short paragraphs that ramble off-subject are not significant coverage, but trivial. Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Im new and idc about sources, as long as it is well written. 49.149.103.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:NOTAVOTE. Stances like this are ignored in coming to a final decision - you must have a policy-based reason for your stance. Not caring about the poor sourcing is probably one of the worse things you could say honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- per the arguments outlined above.Reyk _YO! 11:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per the relevant guidelines at WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - In-universe cruft. Carrite (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think redirect has rough consensus by now, but: REDIRECT WHERE TO, folks? I'm not being paid enough to try to read minds.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of generation VII Pokemon. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When and if this redirect takes places, are we merging some of the content as well? I ask because even if you eliminated the content cited by sources that some folks in this discussion have considered questionable, you'd still end up with a "Notes" entry on this list that is 15 to 20 times larger than basically any other entry, which would seem to create WP:TOOLONG and WP:SUBARTICLE issues. Or the alternative would be to just ax pretty much all of the content, even that which is attributed to the definitely reliable sources, which seems like a loss to our readers. Which of those options would you support, or is there another? (Obviously another option would be splitting it into it's own article, but obviously the redirect voters don't think that's appropriate.) — Hunter Kahn 20:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the more noteworthy Pokemon in these lists have small tidbits about their reception, if any. Just incorporate them that way. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess that'll be what ends up happening, which is a shame. I know some of the sourcing has been brought into question, but as it stands right now, the Incineroar article has almost 1300 words of content (excluding the lead) about various aspects of the character, and I confess I don't really see the logic in depriving our readers of the properly-sourced portions of that content, and just giving them a list entry with a couple sentences instead. Looking at the other Pokemon on the list you shared, it just seems like there's more to say about this character than the others. But I get that I'm only one voice in the discussion. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus not to delete. Whether or not to merge can be discussed outside AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kite Museum (Melaka)[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Sources merely confirm existence. Gnews search comes up with Kite museums elsewhere. Previous AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kite Museum LibStar (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See previous AFD. See wp:ITSAMUSEUM. And look at the photo. Sure, consider comment in previous AFD that perhaps 3 co-located museums could be covered in one article, but there is no way that any one of them should be outright deleted, so ~~AFD~~ deletion is inappropriate IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with People's Museum. WP:ITSAMUSEUM is an essay only, and still makes the point that the museum must be notable to be kept. The People's Museum complex is notable, but this museum is not notable in its own right, although it is an important part of that one. Previous AfD had a single !vote that conceded this should be part of that article. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge People's Museum into this one? The previous AFD's voter suggested a merger could/should be done of these two and the 3rd museum, without specifying how. Seems to me a merger proposal at the Talk pages would make sense, if/when someone has an actual proposal. But especially if an appropriate title / merger target is not obvious to you or me or the deletion nominator here, then "Keep" seems to be appropriate outcome here (though closure could recommend that a merger proposal could/should be made). I don't think "People's Museum complex" is the right term to merge towards (not that you really are suggesting that). --Doncram (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with People's Museum. THIS indicates that the Melaka Kite Museum is located on the 4th floor of the People's Museum building. Not seeing enough for a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested; there is precious little in the article about the kite museum itself.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or else Merge to People's Museum per WP:ITSAMUSEUM. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It looks to me like there are three separate museums housed in one building — the People's Museum, the Kite Museum and the Beauty Museum — so it doesn't make sense to merge one page into another for arbitrary reasons. I know that WP:ITSAMUSEUM is an essay, but essays are important, and if they get cited a lot (three times in this discussion so far), then that indicates that editors find the argument compelling. Also, it has a nice picture of the exhibition gallery. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piki & Poko[edit]

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

Messy article about a Flash cartoon, so poorly sourceable that I can't sort out its contradictions at all. Is it Canadian as claimed in the infobox, or American as claimed by the categories? Is it a standalone film, or a television series? Did it premiere in the 2000s, in order to be "rebroadcast" on television in 2007, or did it premiere in 2015 as claimed by the infobox? The only reference cited here at all is a deadlinked article in a university student newspaper, which is not a notability clincher all by itself if it's the only reliable source that can be shown -- and while I'm able to find lots of unreliable sources on a Google search to technically verify that it existed, I can't find any reliable sources that answer any of those questions or verify anything else notable about it. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:NMEDIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Gogerty[edit]

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

The article was created by a WP:SPA and most of its content was also generated by other SPAs. There is little coverage outside of local news and theater reviews. Several of the sources are Self Published and little is known outside of those sources. Her birthday and birthplace cannot even be found from a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:ENT.

Here is a list of the SPAs:

Cevans319 (creator)
JordanThomasJohnson
Merniehamders
Abharwood

AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Nom's very accurate assessment. The sources on the article are not independent sources, and I didn't find anything "significant" to advance the notability of a WP:BLP. Otr500 (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated. Dorama285 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)~~ The result was soft delete. Due a lack of participation, this uncontroversial nomination should be treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). A request for undeletion can be made by any editor. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Street (film)[edit]

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

Film does not indicate why it is notable. The film's sources are film related websites that simply state the cast like IMDb. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: From lack of discussion, this nomination appears to have no quorum. It seems no previous PRODs, previous AfD discussions, previous undeletions, or a current redirect, so this nomination appears to be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-05 ✗ A7

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoora Nritham[edit]

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

Films that fails to establish its notability. Also, its sources are from film related websites and do not provide any information about the film. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Derby Awards[edit]

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

Unnotable award with no significant media coverage, so WP:GNG is not met. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of website-related deletion discussions. Dorama285

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking WP:RS, and the award pages are becoming a walled garden of spam. It looks like there are more Wikipedia pages about this website's awards at this point than there are reliable sources about them. Dorama285 (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The set of awards does not appear to have significant coverage. I would nominate all the sub-articles too. If the main article is not notable, then the sub-articles are not either. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An award given out by a literal webforum of which we don't know the methodology of winners, independence of the voters, if the votes are true (again, webforum, easily changed) or if a trophy is even sent out; GNG failure for sure. Nate • (chatter) 08:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment consider selective merge/redirect to Gold Derby. Pinging participants in last AfD: @K.e.coffman, SoWhy, AffeL, PRehse, and Cowlibob:. b uidhe 19:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Sunflower Oil[edit]

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

No meaningful coverage, the single claim of notability (GWR) is about a chef, not the company itself and notability is not inherited. Praxidicae (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Sunflower Oil is a notable company founded in 2009. It has enough news references on independent reliable resources. Freedom Hyderabad 10K Marathon and Freedom Cooking Marathon justify the company notability.Jai49 (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "News references on independent reliable resources" is only one part of the requirements for establishing notability. The next part (the most difficult part) is for those "news references" to contain Independent Content (i.e. not rehashed PR or news announcements, not regurgitated quotes from executives) and most be in-depth. None of the references I can find or in the article meet the criteria. If you can find some, please post links here. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing notable about the company. Even if they did have something to do with some marathons, notability isn't inherited, but if it was those things don't seem notable by Wikipedia's standards anyway either. As neither has an article. The other news coverage is trivial. I'm willing to change my vote if the creator of the article who commented above produces some reliable, none trivial sources. As I wasn't able to find any and there aren't any in the article.
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Gupta[edit]

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

non-notable entrepreneur, chock full of paid for press with virtually nothing in the way of actual independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It contains PR links, and the author is aggressively moving the page from draft to mainspace with a few tweaks. I looked at the history and found that he has added a page that leads to Tedx, and the person in the video uses the same name but is a different person. By the looks of it, I'm convinced that the user is paid. I request the Administrators to Please monitor the article and the discussion here. Sadaf1995 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the news articles are looks like Paid. Try to become notable person but as per Wikipedia rules he non-notable personality. We request to remove the Wikipedia of him under the rules.

Speedy delete this foolishness. I bet he wrote it himself.

- Delete. The sources are interesting as examples of the kind of garbage you can get published in supposedly "generally reliable" sources like The Statesman.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! The Greatest of All Time[edit]

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

AfDs related to this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Super Jeopardy!

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Teen Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! College Championship (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Teachers Tournament

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament

Overwhelming precedent that Jeopardy! one-time special event tournaments and annual tournaments do not meet guidelines for inclusion.

Article is a summary of a special event one-time tournament episodes of a game show. While Jeopardy! is a widely notable television show and part of pop culture, a single four-episode tournament held once during a series of 8,000+ episodes does not meet WP:N. Subject is adequately covered in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. AldezD (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect The title is a searchable term. But more can be said in the target article (the list of J! tournaments) about this, such as a bit more detail on the format. Don't need all the tables though. --Masem (t) 17:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#The Greatest of All Time per nom and previous AFDs for Jeopardy! tournaments. Possibly expand the text in that section slightly. Other than recentism, there isn't much that makes this tournament different than the other tournaments that have been deleted/redirected. Frank Anchor^Talk 17:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to keep per other keep votes below. There is significant, non-routine coverage from many of the top news outlets, resulting in a clear pass of WP:GNG. This differs from other tournaments more than I had asserted last week, including the 1990s "Super Jeopardy!" event. There propably could be a reduction in content, but the topic is notable enough for a standalone article. Frank Anchor^Talk 13:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV and unlike the Jeopardy! tournaments that aired as part of the syndicated show itself, this tournament was a completely separate new ABC primetime series and ranked as one of the top entertainment programs this broadcast season. - Brojam (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Jeopardy! was a one-time Jeopardy! tournament that aired on ABC primetime. One-time game show tournaments do not meet guidelines for inclusion as a stand-alone article. AldezD (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG for sure. This event was widely covered in the news and widely discussed on social media. A simple Google search returns pages and pages of news stories about this tournament. It's debatably the single biggest event in the entire history of the show. In fact, I was surprised to see that none of the other big tournaments had articles of their own or were deleted. Obviously the annual Teen Tournament, Teachers Tournament, etc. would not be suitable for inclusion, but a single tournament honoring the greatest of all time the likes of which will probably never be seen again definitely is. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 18:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The precedent is really quite clear, even if this Tournament were qualititatively different from the others, which it doesn't appear to be. There could definitely be more content in the appropriate section on the list article, however. A lot of the detail here should be folded into there. Bbadjosh (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look, I can appreciate that fanboys take tournament pages too far at Wikipedia, but when you have CNN COVERING IT and CNBC COVERING IT as news, you have a case of a GNG-passing event. Carrite (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - Even if the page in a vacuum meets WP:GNG, in the context of the other Jeopardy articles on Wikipedia, the Greatest of All Time tournament isn't significantly different enough from other special Jeopardy events to warrant a separate page from the list of all Jeopardy tournaments and events. Upon reviewing WP:PAGEDECIDE, the Greatest of All Time page would be better served within the context of the other Jeopardy tournements. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to keep since GNG should take precedence over the other notability guidelines. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This tournament was clearly special, and different from other Jeopardy tournaments because:
- It aired on prime-time, with an hour-length episode over four nights. I believe that this is the only time Jeopardy had a prime-time "special".
- It was widely covered by the press, as seen in the 27 sources currently used in the article, including The New York Times. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples of mass-media coverage, specifically about this event (not about Jeopardy events in general), and the only reason they're not in the article now is that they would be redundant.
- It made Ken Jennings the highest-earning American game show contestant of all time.
- It's literally called The Greatest of All Time.

It is a clear standout that does not deserve to be relegated to a list that includes the Teen Tournaments and Senior Tournaments. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If it passes the GNG, it gets to stay (although I may be mistaken). I don't know WHAT in the world Qwaiiplayer is on about.Americanfreedom (talk)
Keep: certainly notable as a special series featuring its most successful players, 2602:306:CE95:57B0:B048:E4EB:68E5:B608 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with prejudice. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 20:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tacha (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Symply Tacha

Articles for deletion/Tacha

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

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

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

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

Fails GNG. Nothing suggest her media career will be different from other non-winning controversial BBN housmates such as TBoss (2017) and CeeCee (2018). Does not pass any of the specific guidelines for her line of work either, just some paid-media buzz. I have reasons to believe there is a strong COI here too, but my main rationale for this nomination is I don't see "relevance" in a few years time (WP:10YT). HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: this is a second AfD for this article. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symply Tacha. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added in the correct first AfD in the box above right. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep Ever since Tacha left the big brother’s house, she has hosted in Mayorkun one of Nigeria’s biggest musician signed to DMW record label owned by Davido “Mayor of Lagos” Concert in December held in lagos state, Nigeria. She is also set to host in Afrobeat Superstar Saturday in LA Lounge , Berlin, United Kingdom ,March 21st. She is not just known for one “event” as a former big brother’s housemate but as a serial enterpreneur with her Everything Tacha business and Titans Collections which was released 18th of January 2020, she is also a philanthropist who launched her “Natacha Akide Intiative” project that cater sanitary pads for young girls, a reality TV star sets to premiere her reality show “Keeping up with Tacha” and a Host References: olisa.tv/bbnaija-tacha-hosts-mayorkuns-lagos-fest-and-it-was-a-success
bellanaija.com/2020/02/keeping-up-with-tacha/amp
thenationonlineng.net/symply-tacha-launches-pad-for-every-girl/amp
herald.ng/tacha-launch-called-titans-collections/amp/
instagram.com/titanscollections
instagram.com/everythingtacha— Carababy1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Carababy1: Why don't you wait for her to premiere her reality show, and for the reality show to be relevant before gauging her as a media personality? The other points you made about her hosting non-notable/semi-notable events do not hold water to me. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The contents on this article about Natacha Anita Ibinabo Akide are purely factual and of utmost value to the Nigerian society. Tacha is an influential and important personality in Nigeria, widely loved both in Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa. I do not support that this article be deleted. Thank you. — Nessaherbert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please don't delete tacha, she's a very nice girl, I'm sure some group of people are reporting her because they support Mercy, please don't delete tacha page, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:542C:4CC0:F98E:DAF0:9B21:D2C8 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tacha is a very popular and influential person in Nigeria.The article on her on Wikipedia shouldn’t be deleted as prospective brands can have access to this information which will help guide their choice in working with her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogefina (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Ogefina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete - This is a second AFD in which the first ended in a clear delete consensus. Okay moving forward the subject of article has still not been discussed with in-depth coverage in reliable sources hence invariably fails both WP:GNG & WP:ENT. Furthermore somebody posted the link to this AFD on Twitter which can be observed here hence the influx of very new users with their first edit being !votes Celestina007 (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
please disregard any evil report you heard about TACHA, it is all false. some people are really pained and frustrated about her sudden fame, and will do anything to bring her down. But we are fans, supporters, promoters, will stand by her daily to defend her for the marvelous works she has done for the girl child and more. In the space of three months, she has made herself a world figure, and also have the largest, strongest, dedicated and most committed fan base in the whole world. please she deserves better, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churchill west Jack (talk • contribs) 11:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Churchill west Jack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Its surprising that an innocent AFD nomination can start something such as this.HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HandsomeBoy, I have gone on to create an SPI investigation on both Carababy1 & Anonybaby. They both must think Wikipedia is a refuse dump site as other platforms. They literally carried their prejudice from twitter to this collaborative project & most annoying is both of them constantly copying my comments word for word from other AFD’s & pasting them on this current one.Celestina007 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck sockpuppet edits, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ambel20 Doug Weller talk 16:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Very good work there!!Celestina007 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We all had the same idea: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anonybaby. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — It should also be noted that a very strong canvassing is ongoing & trending in Nigerian twitter whereby links to this AFD are posted & people are asked to sign up & !vote to keep this article & defend it relentlessly. For example see here there are many more similar to this.Celestina007 (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing more than PR spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Update — The tweets mandating all fans of the subject of the article to !vote a keep on this AFD & vehemently defend & contest the deletion on the main article’s talk page are smartly being deleted. As they are following this AFD in real time & trying to eradicate all loop holes. Right here is a tweet made on Twitter in which we also can observe the major ongoing canvassing which I believe would soon be deleted also since I have made it known in this AFD.Celestina007 (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has happened before. I wouldn't worry about it. The decision will not be made according to the number of people saying keep or delete but upon the weight of the arguments based on our policies and guidelines. I note that the Twitter link is now unavailable. This AfD will be closed by a Wikipedia Administrator and whoever they all they won't be fooled by fans. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, you have a very sound & valid point! Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom is correct in that there is not enough in-depth, independent coverage to establish the subject's notability per WP:BIO; many of the sources are puff pieces or churnalism. In addition, the COI/PAID issues and off-wiki canvasing surrounding this subject (see Talk:Tacha#Paid Advocacy Off Wikipedia & Major Canvassing) definitely runs afoul of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTADVOCACY, core policies of Wikipedia. While these may be overlooked if the subject were overwhelmingly considered to be notable, the past AfD - which resulted in deletion - shows this is not the case. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see several independent reliable sources discussing the subject. The current version may be crappy and in need of improvement, but she passes WP:GNG and the article can be improved. Mahveotm (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article should really be speedily deleted. I'm not convinced this version is different from the version that was deleted. The subject is only known for being a Big Brother Nigeria contestant. She doesn't have a career outside of this event. People notable for a single event do not deserve stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a PR agency website.--Darwinek (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're in the media, a little: Wikipedia Set To Delete Tacha’s Page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure I'd consider sources that publish garbage like this to be "media" Praxidicae (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information Nigeria is definitely not reliable; the website has never been credible. It's more like a gossip blog. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could have used scarequotes, as in "media", sure. I was not suggesting it'd be used as a ref for anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-winning competitor in an eleventieth-tier reality show. Fails WP:GNG Guy (help!) 22:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation if her new reality show becomes notable in the future or if she receives significant coverage. The additional coverage after the previous AfD does not seem to be enough yet. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100% Capri[edit]

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

A quick runover with a chainsaw will remove the stench of spam, but I see nothing in the sources to suggest notability, just PR_generated mush.TheLongTone (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest you WP:Assume good faith. I am certainly not a PR op or spammer nor do I have any interest in writing articles here which excessively praise people and include gushing prose and use non reliable sources. I would never have created this if I didn't believe it was within guidelines. Sources like Haute Living, Miami Herald, Fodor's, Palm Beacher Magazine meet both WP:RS and WP:GNG. Bal Harbor Shops is also the most lucrative shopping centre in the entire United States. This brand has stores in many of the world's wealthiest locations, it's clearly notable in its field. I have been careful in writing here to write content which is neutral and encyclopedic and avoid incorporating "fluff" as I can see that companies and CEO articles are unfairly discriminated against here because people seem to assume that anybody writing articles on companies are spammers. This is better quality and sourced better than a sizeable percentage of our current articles. I intend on fully expanding our poor quality article on Capri too, but I need mutual support from other editors here to be motivated to write here, not this hostile approach. Universal Encyclopedian2 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due lack of notability and also assuming good faith, but they aren't mutually exclusive. Someone can have all the good intent in the world but their article still might not meet the notability guidelines. That's life. Get over it and make articles about actually notable companies next time instead of complaining or putting it on other people like your doing toward the nominator. It's not on them your sources don't qualify or that your prose smells like advertising. It's not a big deal. Learn from it and write better articles next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are local promos, routine mentions in trade magazines, or press releases. I can't find anything more significant when I search. Glendoremus (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OrderStack[edit]

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

It does not pass WP:GNG. Product of UPE (see history). Note that I stubbed the article because none of the sources used talked about OrderStack. You may want to check the article previous to my clean up too ([12]). MarioGom (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The current version has relevant references. 12:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per snowball, In no way are three primary sources relevant references. Btw, it's hilarious the user of the single keep vote deleted their signature to try and hide that there vote was probably attached to a COI account. Haha. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. Dorama285 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage found for the current or previous "Skipthecommission" name. The TNGONE parent has no article so provides no redirect option. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is common with these cross-cutting list AfDs, the arguments are basically, "There's no sources that cover this as a group" vs "But it's a useful navigation tool", which no consensus either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York City parks relating to the Vietnam War[edit]

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

Wikipedia:No original research. While interesting, no sources provided to show this is a notable subject. Loksmythe (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further in LISTN it states Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. I believe this is such an instance, since there exists no other venue to aggregate this kind of information (Vietnam War memorials in NYC). Importantly, besides for the unlinked entries there are at least 4 blue linked ones. StonyBrook (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost all the entries are referenced, which suggests that this covers a viable topic - a loose network of war memorials. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a properly sourced listing of Vietnam war-related parks, it meets WP:GNG, as the NYC Parks citations show a clear connection with the Vietnam War. A list need not be covered by a few centralized references, though the sourcing can indeed be improved. epicgenius (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly add more sources to back up those from the Parks Department web page.--Queens Historian (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New York City parks relating to Jewish culture. Few of these "relate to the Vietnam War" but rather simply have a namesake who was involved in the war, not quite a "clear connection". Entries being references does not necessarily establish "a viable topic" when there is a lack of coverage of these as a set per LISTN. The majority are small non-notable playgrounds and squares that apparently need mention over parks in other cities and other locations in NYC not managed by NYC Parks. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they are named after a veteran of the war, they are related to the war. StonyBrook (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN and my comments above. StonyBrook (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is just a list and a single photo. This might be better material for a New York City parks Wiki.TH1980 (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @TH1980: I'm not sure I understand your objection. The article has always been intended as a list (which is valid if it meets list notability criteria), and we're discussing whether this list is notable. Having one photo is not something we consider when we decide whether to delete an article - we consider notability and sources. epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Do we have sources which treat this subject as a group? I wouldn't be surprised if it existed, but that's usually how we evaluate notability of a list topic and ensure there's no original research in the grouping (i.e. we need more than verification of each entry; there are any number of subjects we could write lists about in the format "list of [X] in [Y] that [Z]," so we need evidence that the grouping itself has been covered). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, well I decided to take a look, but kept coming up with results about the Queens Vietnam War memorial. Maybe it's because I lived nearby, but still, someone else should probably take a look. epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:LISTN criteria. Lightburst (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would've closed as no consensus but would think a relist would be better. Happy to be reverted though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 14:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Significant coverage in reliable sources, added subsequent to the nomination, is the reason the consensus is to keep this article. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Fan (nurse)[edit]

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

Completing for TheLongTone. Initial rationale (with datestamp) was Dying of this virus is, even in the early stages of the epidemic, not a plausible claim of notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm open to a plausible redirect target.TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC). I have no opinion on subject. Nightfury 14:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now supplemented some contexts which made her notable, and will continue to add more. Her death attracted national attention and considerable controversies ensued which occupied press coverage for days. She was also an important figure in the early chronology of the coronavirus outbreak. A Google search for her returns more than five million results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%9F%B3%E5%B8%86+%22%E6%8A%A4%E5%A3%AB%22

I am afraid that just because you haven't heard of (English) news reports of her doesn't make her not notable, to be a bit blunt. Rethliopuks (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a good idea to include a plausible case for notability in the article before you click publishTheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which I still don't see, incidentally.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea not to assume that everyone has access to undivided time for a thorough Wikipedia article, especially when this article started as a translation of the Chinese article; it makes sense to keep an initial copy for reference, it retains faithfulness, it helps with the content clarity when controversies re: the content arises, among other things. As for notability, how about the first nurse to die from COVID-19? Rethliopuks (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still lazy editing: if you have the time and motivation to write an article a couple of dozen keystrokes take no time. And no, I don't find that a plausible claim to notability, rather a reason to mention her elsewhere and redirect this article to that, since other than her death there is no content in the article of great interest.TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE C2-C3, D1. Rethliopuks (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, take a look at the updated article, and define "great interest". Rethliopuks (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone: You do realise that the AfD is malformed? Do you want me to fix it? Nightfury 14:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I used Twinkle to do it, but the beast isn't performing properly.

Consider it done. Nightfury 14:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: WP:NOTMEMORIAL requires the non-satisfaction of the notability requirements, which for people are: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I argue that because these are all now satisfied, WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no basis and does not apply.

"Liu Fan + nurse" has 5,290,000 Google search results: [1]. "Liu Fan + Wuhan" has 9,760,000 Google search results: [2]. "Liu Fan + Wuhan + nurse" has 6,380,000 Google results: [3]. "Liu Fan + novel coronavirus" has 1,290,000: [4]. Even the most restrictive "Liu Fan + Wuhan + nurse + novel coronavirus" has 1,010,000: [5]. All the sources I cite in the article are published secondary sources that are reliable. They are intellectually independent of each other. Further, the source are all clearly independent of the subject.

I would also like to point out that the deletion request was not made for the current version of the article, but its very first version 201 seconds after the article's creation as a piece of translation for Chinese Wikipedia: link. The short time scale in which the request was published makes it difficult to presume that all the major steps of BEFORE had been heeded, especially C2 and C3 (which it seems clear had been disregarded), and secondarily D1, B6, and B2. I would therefore like to request the reader to carefully review neutrally the article as it presently stands, which is not a version to which a justified deletion request in accordance Wikipedia's policies has been raised. Rethliopuks (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. We don't need an article on the first train driver to die in this epidemic, or the first teacher. Harsh as it may seem, we don't need one for the first nurse either. It needs something else to establish WP:GNG and there isn't anything in the article at the time I am writing. There is some mention in mainstream English-language media, in the context of health worker deaths. At least an attempt to work with those might get the article somewhere. Lithopsian (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment even if her death had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG? And notice, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." Rethliopuks (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment most of the content of the article as it currently stands was published after this opinion was written. I would like to request the reader reviewing this request to take note of this fact (checkable via the article's history page) that descriptions in this opinion may not apply to the current version of the article, and review the article as it stands. Rethliopuks (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the additional details provide useful background on the reactions of the authorities.--Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Death of Liu Fan based on available sources. TJMSmith (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perhaps borderline, but not an obvious candidate for deletion. --Orthorhombic, 14:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't read Chinese newspapers but it would appear that her death was a notable event in China. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News results in Chinese language suggest sufficient notability. Idolmm (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy any of the above. Notable only for dying? She is worth a one-line mention in another article, and a redirect. All the content of this article is of absolutely no encyclopedic value.TheLongTone (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only have the most remedial knowledge of Chinese and I can't eke out characters yet, but in English many top of the line reliable sources consider this woman's death notable. What we don't know is if her life was, in the context of Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. I don't consider this memorialism though. ⌚️ (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search in the current news of China shows notable. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable in China. Chongkian (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep per WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rethliopuks and Lightburst. — Hunter Kahn 03:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think it's clear that there's no consensus to delete this outright. I suggest continuing the discussion about a possible merge on the talk pages; possibly with delete off the table, it'll be easier to coalesce around either keeping this as is, or deciding which of several possible merge targets make the most sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York City parks relating to Hispanic and Latino American culture[edit]

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

Wikipedia:No original research. While interesting, no sources provided to show this is a notable subject. Loksmythe (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree. The article has many citations and the NYC Parks system is one of the biggest in America, undoubtedly notable.--Wil540 art (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, the title for this article is a bit clumsy. Perhaps better to rename it as "List of New York City Parks Relating to Hispanic and Latino Individuals and Culture," or something less wordy. That way parks not named after people, such as Quisqueya Playground can remain on this list. I'd like to get feedback on a more ideal name for the page. And of course, I'll continue to add more sources to back up those from the Parks Department web page. Rename, don't delete.--Queens Historian (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New York City parks relating to Jewish culture: this is a list of namesakes, not indicative of how the park relates to H/L culture. "Many citations" and "biggest in America" have no bearing on the lack of sources on the topic as a whole, needed for WP:LISTN. Of course the park system is notable, but that doesn't mean every possible cross-categorization of name etymologies is notable. Reywas92^Talk 01:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's not even one Hispanic and Latin (not Latino) American culture, is there? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt is a helpful list for historians, tourists, and anyone interested in understanding the impact of Latino individuals, places, and events on New York City. Loksmythe is also trying to delete some of my other NYC Parks lists. Not sure why that user is picking on my articles. Let's send a clear message that this article deserves to stay!Queens Historian (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Historian, I am not picking on you, I am simply following Wikipedia's policies. I actually find your articles interesting but they arguably don't pass Wikipedia's general notability guideline given that you appear to be engaging in Wikipedia:No original research. Please familiarize yourself with these policies. Loksmythe (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of New York City parks. Similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New York City parks relating to Jewish culture. While I do agree that the sourcing needs to be improved, the NYC Parks citations do show a history of the parks' respective namesakes. Many of them clearly say that it was named for a Hispanic/Latino subject. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hispanics and Latinos in New York, per nom's reasoning and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Useful list, but not a topic for an encyclopedia, even one that is WP:NOTPAPER. I would also add other NYC infrastructure named for Hispanics and Latinos in the above, which is an existing non-controversial topic that is nearly empty and could use this content. StonyBrook (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a misnamed article that is an indiscriminate list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of New York City parks. Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, delete or merge? No real consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 14:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shefin Mayan[edit]

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

It's hard to be sure, but it seems that this person is not notable by our standards. Sourcing is to Youtube, Facebook, IMDb, all the usual suspects. Other sources such as this blog make no mention of him at all. Obvious (and undisclosed) WP:COI or WP:PAID material – the page creator claims to have taken this photograph of the subject. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like WP:SOAPBOX Editor who created this page was banned for advertising. Questionable sources and suggested close relation with subject makes it a WP:COI — BriefEdits (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBW (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is WP:REFBOMBed and once you discard unreliable/unrelated sources there isn't anything that indicates a WP:GNG Pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Reza Namazi[edit]

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

I've searched both the Farsi spelling and English spelling of this person's name and can find virtually no sources or coverage about him. Mardetanha (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mardetanha (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG, as above. Assistant professors almost never pass PROF. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kortney Nash[edit]

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

Nash appeared on a total of 2 TV episodes. This is not the thing notability is made of. The sources are mainly unreliable with one possible extremely passing mention, nothing even close to showing notability John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. Her IMDb has a few more credits, but I'm finding no significant independent coverage from reliable sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's little to nothing in the article to support a claim if notability and nothing more found in a Google search to add to what's here already. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure if a WP:BEFORE was carried out by the nominator, because, as pointed out above, the subject has appeared in more than just two TV show episodes. That being said, neither WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR are made out, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. ⌚️ (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 20:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wawatay Kids TV[edit]

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

Article about a television series, completely unsourced for the purposes of establishing that it would pass WP:TVSHOW. While I am able to find technical verification of it in TV listings directories, simply being able to verify that it existed is not an automatic inclusion freebie for a TV series -- the series still has to show some evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it. But literally all I can find for reliable sourcing is a single glancing acknowledgement of its existence in an article about its broadcaster's 2001 programming upfronts, which is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, where it is already mentioned, keeping the history for potential use. The title is a valid search term, with no disambiguation. Modernponderer (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Beach, Indiana[edit]

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

Small subdivision, not a distinct or notable populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:N Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Malcolm Douglas (documentary maker). Consensus not to retain as a standalone, redirecting without merge tag although without deletion. History remains if anyone wants to merge anything further that's sourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fatso (crocodile)[edit]

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

One event croc who just bit a guy that got too close. Not much to write about. Note that the event news articles talk about the guy more than the croc. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malcolm Douglas (documentary maker)#Crocodile Park. Definitely not notable in its own right, just a one off news event, but could be a search term. Due weight has already been applied in the redirect target. Not sure why this was not a BOLD redirect in the first place? Aoziwe (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoziwe. Absolutely nothing here to have an independent article. Instead of a BLP one-event here, it's a biography of a living animal one event. And not a super important event, either. Hog Farm (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Malcolm Douglas (documentary maker). --awkwafaba (📥) 14:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aoziwe, this is not notable on its own but could be a search term. 173.251.14.133 (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; one time event with no in-depth follow-up or lasting coverage. Could also be argued that it is an improper BLP slipped in under the guise of an article about a crocodile. Glendoremus (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Malcolm Douglas (documentary maker)#Crocodile Park per WP:NOTEWORTHY. Doing so would also add more info about Douglas to his article. StonyBrook (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable: this is a one time event with no lasting coverage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beri Smither[edit]

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

New PROD was declined after previously being PRODed in 2006. Rationale was “ Inadequately sourced since creation in 2006. No indication individual passes WP:GNG.” TonyBallioni (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsurprisingly. I WP:IAR accepted the recent prod on this—this is a BLP that's been unsourced for fourteen years (the single alleged "source" is just a link to a long-dead user-generated site)—but the deletion was overturned so here we are. The number of Google hits is deceptive; as far as I can ascertain there's nothing that's actually about her, just "and Beri Smither was also there" type mentions on coverage of other people. ‑ Iridescent 11:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TB beat me too it. A shame about the process-for-process-sakism of course. Even if anyone wanted to source this (and there doesn't seem to be any urgency about that), there is a complete dearth of coverage of the subject in third-party, independent reliable sources, in either the literature ([13],[14]) or news outlets ([15],[16]) which ranges from zero at worse to passing, WP:MILL-type, diectory mentions. This is the only thing that appears to have been written on them: Perfect People, unsurprisingly, is not a good source. Fails to meet the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 12:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly notable. Bkatcher (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the initial prod I started (without realizing it had been prod'd before). Loksmythe (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It just might (maybe sorta) have been WP:TOOSOON when it was created but the decade+ that has passed since then shows that it does not meet WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That such a sub-standard article has survived for 14 years is a reflection on our very poor oversight here at Wikipedia. Not quite as bad as the 16 years of the article on Barahir, but not much better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything seems to check out. The subject was clearly a top-tier model during the 1990s, being featured on the cover of all the major fashion magazines and so passes WP:NMODEL. The TV show didn't last but her role in that checks out too. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Chen[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a restaurateur, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion standards for restaurateurs. This is almost entirely reference bombed to a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of other things that aren't support for notability at all -- and the only sources that are about him in any non-trivial way are a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person and a piece in a local interest magazine, which is not enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source on the menu. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. Neither notable as a restaurateur nor as a producer. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canale Communications[edit]

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

With the exception of some brief mention of the acquisition by UDG Healthcare ([17]) coverage by reliable sources is almost absent and not in-depth. MarioGom (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable and written for the purpose of advertising. "life science strategic communications firm" says it all. You probably could have done a successful G11 deletion request on it also. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable/advert. Dorama285 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Störm (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi[edit]

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

Non notable Deobandi seminary. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 20:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi, Pakistan is one of the largest university and institution for religious education in the city of Karachi. This article is much improved now. It now has references from two major Pakistani newspapers and two international news websites – Dawn (newspaper), The News International, Arab News, The 500 Most Influential Muslims (The Muslim 500). Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi is one of the top Islamic universities in Pakistan. The one who has added the article for deletion seems to be biased towards the Deobandi school of Islamic thought. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi, Pakistan is notable.16:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Why it is notable? Any sources? ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 17:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my first comment above about the sources – two major Pakistani newspapers and two international news websites. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notable sources still need to be provided - saying there is sources wont do without proof.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of BEFORE; nomination is simply an assertion. One of the main Islamic seminaries of Pakistan. UCS. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnyx[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This person is a music producer notable for one event, producing No Flockin. The biographical sources cited in the article, [18][19][20], all read like press releases or self-sourced postings. I was unable to find any significant biographical details in reliable sources. Moreover, music producers are out-of-scope of WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep as per WP:MUSICBIO WP:BASIC WP:ANYBIO

Thanks for the suggestions. I would like to politely refute the points regarding sourcing, notability, and the scope of music producer as per WP:MUSICBIO.

1. Sourcing - In terms of the music industry, the sources cited are reliable as per Wikipedia's own definition of secondary sources.

A) As per their website, musiconnection.com was "Founded in 1977 on the principle of bridging the gap between “the street and the elite,” Music Connection has grown from a popular print publication into a spectrum of products and services that address the wants and needs of musicians, the music tech community and industry support services." An independent music trade publication (which has its own wikipedia page) that has been around for 40+ years is a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines (just because its not well-known outside of the music business does not mean it's not a reliable source).

B) Genius [formerly Rap Genius] is considered one of the most relevant music information platforms today. Yes, for the lyrics/song info side Genius is crowdsourced, but the source in question is written by their news editor. The video was shot and edited by Genius (presumably at their in-house studio) and has almost a million views. Hard to see how this can be considered a self-sourced posting. Genius is just as relevant of a reliable source as Rolling Stones, Complex, or other music publications.

2. Notability WP:BASIC states that, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" The above sourcing (and additional sourcing on the page) passes WP:BASIC. On the notable for one event page it states, "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." In this case, Vinnyx is notable for producing other songs along with No Flockin (as seen on the discography page, all information I found credited to him online).

3. Scope of "Music Producer" - Note Vinnyx is also listed as a songwriter (Rui Wen Pan).

Notability (music) [[21]] should apply more than the basic WP:ANYBIO is this case. Please note that Vinnyx is both a [producer] and a songwriter [[22]]. Record producers, when they are also credited as songwriters (aka. composers), can be considered both instrumentalists and composers (the Genius source video states itself that Vinnyx make the beat for No Flockin - which is an instrumental).^[1] In this case, No Flockin has been RIAA certified platinum (Criteria for musicians and ensembles) and Vinnyx has songwriting credits for multiple music compositions (Criteria for composers and lyricists).

On the Nominated for deletion[[23]] page, it states, "The general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for someone to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." The above explanation should show this page qualifies.

TorontoMusicGenius (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NBAND, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:GNG. Without getting into the weeds of whether a particular source is significant or reliable, I want to address the big picture. Wikipedians have long had a consensus that producers are ordinary and run of the mill, because their job - while important to the industry and them - does not actually entail creating anything by themselves (they collaborate with and direct musicians). They are not otherwise notable for doing anything at all but their jobs; using a mult box does not require a college degree or a great deal of talent. Actually notable producers tend to own their own studios, are members of an academy such as the Grammys, have long careers, help create innovative or avant garde work, bring together artists from different genres, have been interviewed by the media for their work, and win awards for their work. I don't see any of that here. SIGCOV creates a presumption that someone is notable, but many red links direct you to deleted articles about people who've had significant coverage in reliable sources. (I don't want to embarrass anybody, but if you insist, I have the receipts.) I also note that NMUSIC applies to specific issues that musicians and bands deal with; they are notable not for what they write on the bus, but rather for performing in public, even as small as a house concert. For that reason, studio musicians are rarely considered notable. In 2020, everybody knows that Wikipedia is a private charity; thus nobody has a right to have anything hosted by us. There's certainly no legal right; see recent caselaw. You certainly wouldn't demand that the Girl Scouts donate a share of their cookies to your charity, or demand an Episcopal church to host your denomination's rites, or a youth hostel to let you crash there without being a member. The same goes here. To save your article, you still have the burden to find details about a public figure's life (school, relationships, charitable work, etc.), and much more on his song-writing and Platinum certifications. I encourage sysops to give the proponent(s) a week's time to fix this article. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~oppose/keep~~ Struck dupe vote Nightfury 11:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC) as per WP:MUSICBIO WP:BASIC WP:ANYBIO Could someone please provide a source that Wikipedia has "long had a consensus that producers are ordinary and run of the mill?" Because this exact prejudicial statement is what producers and songwriters across the Music Business have been fighting against in the past few years. ^[2] ^[3]^[4]^[5] For anyone who doesn't understand how influential and impactful music producers are, please read the above sources - you'll also see that the distinction between an "artist" and a "producer" is purely an arbitrary one. As the above sources show, most people don't realize how much of their favorite songs are done by the producers and songwriters. There is a movement in the industry right now to recognize and acknowledge producers and songwriters as much as the artists. Because a lot of the times, the artist just sings what the producers/songwriters has wrote and slaps their brand onto it. Why should so many upcoming artists who have not achieved anything significant have Wikipedia pages and upcoming producers are not given the same level of credibility when they have commercially released successful records? That seems like a double-standard and against Wikipedia's own policies. I would hope that people don't automatically become prejudicial and stereotypical of things that they don't fully understand, and rather spend some time learning about it before coming to conclusions. That to me is the ethos of Wikipedia.[reply]

--TorontoMusicGenius (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TorontoMusicGenius - you cannot vote twice.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just to clarify relist comment, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute - "The debate is not a vote:..." ie. editors recommend a course of action, we do not "vote". Coolabahapple (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with an alternate merge if there is a suitable article: Per Nom and the in-depth and accurate rationale of user:Bearian. Comments: The opposing "keep" of the editor that likely offered a good faith double "!vote" actually offers (likely inadvertently) support for "deletion". The comments "Why should so many upcoming artists who have not achieved anything significant have Wikipedia pages and upcoming producers are not given the same level of credibility when they have commercially released successful records?". This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Because "other" articles are on Wikipedia is not relevant. There are many factors that might be the reasoning, like maybe those articles are better sourced, or maybe they just have not came across an editor that questions the notability enough to nominate them. Some key issues here are notability, sources, and the article itself. While a source can be acceptable for content it may not advance notability. An "industry specific source", that may be reliable, is often biased towards the subject tending to be promotional. If a source is not a review it is likely never going to show but one side so providing independent sources (Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?) provides evidence the article is non-promotional or advertisement. Without this there is a lack of a neutral point of view. This is not only policy but part of the Wikipedia "Five pillars". When an article is a pseudo biography it is usually because the subject is not suitable for a stand alone article. When the notability of a subject (If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.) is questioned a red flag would be Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest.. Surely it can be seen that many industry specific sources will have "financial or other personal considerations" towards the subject, that would diminish the value over a more independent source, and not be as reliable towards advancing notability, or not at all. A great example of substandard sources not advancing notability would be the source noted above "Genius". Crowdsourcing aside, or the potential reliability of the source, a COI is clearly evident (possibly except to a fan) with "The video was shot and edited by Genius (presumably at their in-house studio)...". When the subject of a source is directly involved with the subject of the article there are not only COI issues, independent sourcing issues, NPOV issues, but the source should absolutely be considered a self-published source (if acceptable at all), possible only for content about the subject that does not advance notability, regardless of how many "millions of view" are involved. In my opinion sources presented to prove notability when "they clearly do not" are nothing more than reference bombing, no matter if presented in good faith, but many times are also a Gish gallop argument (intended or not) and the end result is an article that fails more than one point of What Wikipedia is not. Otr500 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow closer here, I like to intern my skill of interpreting discussion consensus, I interpret this discuss as Delete, and I leave for the admin to proceed with the action if so interpreted. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 20:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bowman's Strategy Clock[edit]

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

This has sat with a notability tag for 12 years. I could not establish that it does meet WP:NOTABILITY, but I suspect it could be borderline, so bringing it here. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm mixed. Lots of stuff about it come up in a Google search, but most of it seems like junk, blog posts, or press releases. The person who created the article only really edited one other article which was to insert a citation to this one. So, I think it was created for marking purposes. Therefore, it's a weak delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a valid theory in economics. I get the vibe that its taught in college economics courses, based on [24], [25], and [26]. I'm not an economist, but I'd wager that this is covered in an economics/marketing textbook somewhere. Of course, we're unlikely to just find it by searching google, since textbooks are not cheap nor accessible (WP:NEXIST). But given that I could find a bunch of quick google sources, the images results are just chock full of visualizations of the "clock", and that Bowman's original paper is well cited, I think this is worthy of a keep. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of provided sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't an economics piece, it's related to marketing and finance and it is self-sourced. I had my Wak-a-Mole mallet at the ready. Much to my surprise, this is a finance concept that is substantially covered by multiple, published pieces of presumed reliability... See, for example, THIS on AQA.org. Many multiple instances of its use in financial analysis. Go figure. GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Gerard Trotman[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:PROMO. Seems to be a resume type article. Much of the purported notability in the article is unsourced tbh. Most of the citations are primary, could not find anything myself other than some book.google.com searches of novels that he self published. Google search only yields author press bio on Goodreads and Amazon. Editor who maintains the page only edits on other pages that pertains to this guy. Due to the size of the article but lack of citations, I would also assume that the editor is a fan/know the subject. BriefEdits (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't see any SNG that the subject appears to meet. I also don't believe that there is enough significant independent coverage of him to show that WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Craig MacFarlane[edit]

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

promotional and non notable. This has been declined as a draft 5 times , by 4 different reviewers. Theed. has in the process accumulated enough edits to be able to write the same unsatisfactory material in mainspace, and has now done so. This is an artifact of our system for handling articles by new editors, and we need to find some way to prevent people from using this loophole.

I note the two books listed are self published, and neither is any significant number of libraries.

I assume this is promotionalism for his lecture career. The contributor was asked whether there was coi and has not responded.

I suggest, not just deletion, but protection. DGG ( talk ) 10:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sources than this even attempts to show. Weekly World News? Really? Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV. One source cited is known for hoaxes, and another is published by a cult. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete There's only one strong reliable source. Not enough to keep a promotional article Alpateya (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australia’s Top 100 Graduate Employers[edit]

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

essentially all the articles are just notes of one or another firm's placement on the list, or other similarly minor material What is needed is substantial coverage DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any IRS about the subject. The vast majority of coverage there is, is either PRIMARY, or COI, ie, comments or mentions by organisations listed by the subject. Also, as far as I can tell the article title is a trojan, ie, it is NOT a list of the top 100 employers, it is a list of the top 100 sought after employers? I could find nothing of any use searching by "Prosple" (the publisher) either. Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of low significance and not linked to any other pages or lists. References 1, 7 and 10 are all blocked by a pay wall. There is no point using The Australian as a reference, too few have access to it. Teraplane (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Asad Madni was a Member of Parliament as per the source mentioned in the article: https://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/pre_member/1952_2003/m.pdf (non-admin closure) ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As'ad Madani[edit]

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

Non notable Islamist scholar and politician from India. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 08:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 08:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 08:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 08:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BEFORE? Member of the upper house of India... WP:POLITICIAN. AfD is not cleanup.--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL through the article lacked a WP:RS at the time of nomination but have found his name in the Rajya Sabha Website and added it .Subject is a 3 term member of the Rajya Sabha upper house of the Indian Parliament.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Keep. Notable politician related to Jamiat Ulema e Hind. Been Member of Indian parliament. Does not meet the conditions of deletion. Moreover I have added relevant references from Archives of PMO India and others. Now tell me how are you fair in nominating it for deletion. I have seen you earlier nominating pages of Deobandi Ulama for deletion, tagging them as non-notable, it displays nothing but you being biased towards this section. Do some research before nominating any page for deletion. Add more to Wikipedia. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:NPOL as a member of a national legislature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93:. Thanks a lot.Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk)

Keep - members of parliament, former or current are presumed notable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This above nominator, User:❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ has shown clear and convincing bias, on both India and Pakistan AfD discussion forums, against all religious groups within Sunni Islam other than his own religious sect headed by Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar in South India, for over a month now that I have been noticing him targeting other people's religious leaders and religious parties. Evidence is right here for anyone to see. He's a man of minimum words, when nominating for deletion. He simply and cleverly calls longtime members of Indian parliament or Rajya Sabha and heads of religious parties, "Non-notable" and nominates them for deletion. So far, I have not retaliated by nominating his religious leader for deletion. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only nominated for deletion the ones that are eligible for deletion. If my nomination is wrong, you can place it with evidence. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statements proving that he was a Member of Parliament were added after my nomination. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL. He has held national office. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WQKE308[edit]

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

It seems highly unlikely that a low power auxiliary radio station, which officially isn't even a broadcast station, could ever have the sources to satisfy the general notability guideline, especially one tied to what is otherwise an Internet radio station. (This had been tagged for proposed deletion, but it was also briefly tagged for prod in 2009, and was de facto contested. Articles can only go through the proposed deletion process once, ever.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Honestly, reading this article, I don't even understand what this radio station is. "WQKE308 is not a broadcast station in the traditional sense. The primary use of the frequency is for distribution of production audio ... it is not meant for reception by the general public ...." I don't understand what "distribution of production audio" is; the most relevant Google hits for that phrase return excerpts from this very article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same thoughts with Metropolitan90. It does have a license, but it doesn't have a stable frequency. Since its main use is "distribution of production audio" in which I also don't understand, it fails WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Störm (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions[edit]

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

The organization does not seem notable. But its founders are notable. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 04:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 04:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 04:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 04:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 04:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The average reader/editor won't understand from the current article, what is special/different about Islamic accounting. How could it be different? Well the big deal is the no-usury requirement in Sharia law. No charging interest is allowed. (The Christian bible also outlaws usury, I think, but in practice it is understood that usury means high/unreasonable/exploitative interest rates.) In Islam, interest rate = zero, only. How can one do accounting for bonds, loans, financing of any kind, if it is not possible to recognize interest? Any Western bank in an Islamic country, if it gives conventional reports, would be committing crimes, I think. It is necessary to construct convoluted-in-my-view financing agreements, e.g. make complicated agreements where various things are exchanged, perhaps including exchange of goods with their values not expressed in monetary terms, or the like, I think.

This article is about the largest organization and effort towards rationalizing this stuff, I think. It is important to allow business processes / economies to work, without running afoul of religious laws/forces; it is important to moderate/negotiate with fundamentalist forces, I think. And this organization is major, as the article says:

AAOIFI was established in accordance with the Agreement of Association which was signed by Islamic financial institutions on 26 February 1990 in Algiers. Then, it was registered on 27 March 1991 in Bahrain. It has members from more than 45 countries, including central banks and Islamic financial institutions and other parties working in the financial industry and banking, Islamic International. The commission has obtained support for the application of the standards issued by it, where these standards are dependent today in the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Dubai International Financial Centre, Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, Sudan and Syria. The competent authorities in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and South Africa issued guidelines derived from the standards and publications.

Sure, the article should be developed to address this stuff head-on, and to avoid euphemisms about what needs to go on, cutting through any b.s. involved. Comments at Talk page and tagging article for development would be appropriate. But wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Wikipedia articles Islamic banking and finance and Profit and loss sharing seem to be pretty good. The first explains the introduction of the AAOIFI; both address quandaries of Sharia not allowing bad "riba". In my comment above i trying to reason how riba/interest can be avoided in contracts. One major approach is to use equity financing only, not fixed interest rates. So a bank can accept deposits but won't promise any fixed interest payments to depositors, who are profit shareholders in the businesses/projects that the bank provides funds to. And the businesses are not required to provide fixed interest payments back, but rather provide back shares of profits (according to what they choose to disclose back). This kind of approach is inefficient, exacerbating problems of moral hazard, and making it difficult/impossible for Sharia-compliant processes to benefit from tax deductions of interest payments. Abdel-Karim's paper cited in the article explains, diplomatically, some of the challenges for AAOIFI. Literally one danger is having fatwas put out by Islamic fundamentalists which decree that some practices or institutions are bad and worthy of punishment.

The deletion nomination does not address the sources in the article, which suffice IMO. --Doncram (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citations added to prove notability--Irshadpp (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as no consensus owing to low participation. One keep, no deletes outstanding (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balala Hakkula Sangham[edit]

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

Inadequately-sourced article about a non-notable organization. The only available sources are press releases and passing mention - nothing close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 12:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is some coverage in reputable sources. Not in very much depth, but its rare to find in depth coverage of organisations of this sort. Rathfelder (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: No in depth coverage = no article. The subject must pass WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:ORGIND to merit an independent article and current sources do not meet the requirements. GSS ^💬 02:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Context is all. There are thousands of articles about organisations without very much coverage in depth. Depth is not an absolute term. The coverage needs to be assessed in relation to coverage of similar organisations. What we have here is not what is described as trivial coverage - which is mostly including things in a list. It's publications quoting the views and actions of the organisation as worth reporting. Rathfelder (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to care if other stuff exists and our main focus should be on the current topic. There are hundreds of small-time organizations like this one in India, and we can't write about all of them only because they exist. A Google search for this one yield only 200 something hits and most of them are a press release, passing mentions etc. and the same goes with the current sources in the article. Can you point out one single source that talks about the organization independently? GSS ^💬 08:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ——SN 54129 13:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 04:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Catholic Asian News[edit]

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

I think it is a non notable news portal. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 03:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 03:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 03:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Passes ORG.^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ https://lawyerdrummer.com/2016/01/music-producer-songwriting/
^ https://cw.ua.edu/51786/opinion/music-producers-need-as-much-recognition-as-musical-artists/
^ https://www.thefader.com/2017/06/27/sonny-digital-producer-union
^ https://www.stereogum.com/1891681/the-rise-of-the-producer-as-a-lead-artist/franchises/the-week-in-pop/
^ https://www.complex.com/music/2018/01/why-are-so-many-producers-getting-record-deals
^ Hunt, Luke (17 November 2017). "The View From Asia's Largest Catholic News Agency". thediplomat.com.
^ Kavi, Jose (18 October 2019). "Asia's largest Church news agency divided, readers baffled". Matters India.
^ "Australian Jesuit to Head Asian Catholic News". www.archivioradiovaticana.va. 17 October 2008.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Goldsztajn. I suggest the links posted here should be added to the article since they help make the article pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified above which show a close pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep – passes WP:GNG per above. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Goldsztajn. Notable but it's a stub. Needs more inline citations.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Revolutionary Party (Panama)[edit]

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

Minor political party lacking notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 4 respectable references.Rathfelder (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The exact result of the 1948 Panamanian general election was contested, by some accounts PRA won the elections (https://www.panamaamerica.com.pa/opinion/metamorfosis-del-arnulfismo-en-panama-992064). By the numbers of the Wikipedia article, PRA got 36%+ of the nationwide popular vote. I doubt WP:BEFORE was done before nominating this article for deletion. --Soman (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femina Miss India 2020[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process No sources, no indication of wp:notability... Future event. North8000 (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Femina Miss India is the branding of the Miss India competitions. Should be fairly uncontroversial, the article does need references though. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete first of all, notability is not inherited. This year's event fails general notability criteria, as well as notability criteria for events. Second, per WP:CRYSTAL. We are not even sure if it is already cancelled, or if it is going to take place for sure. A lot of awards, and other events have already been cancelled/postponed, and some have been postponed indefinitely. India fashion week was put off. See 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India#Impact for further details. Indian govt has told to travel only if necessary. For many countries, all visas have been suspended except for diplomatic visas [27]. FMI 2020 taking place, and winner representing India in miss world, to be held at Thailand is nothing but crystal baling without reliable sources. Thailand govt will most likely cancel/postpone the event too. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is pure PROMO, I can only find one single trivial mention in an independent RS. Possibly draftify until event has concluded (and delete at later point if event cancelled). --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SKCRIT #1, nomination withdrawn and no other delete !votes outstanding. No need to prolong further. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Study hall[edit]

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

Basically a WP:DICTDEF, padded with lots of WP:OR. The one reference doesn't really talk about the subject in a way that meets WP:GNG, and my own searching doesn't find anything better. Tagged for improvement for ten years. As a WP:ATD, maybe a soft-redirect to wikt:study hall. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn given the improvements. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: I agree with the nominator. WP:NOTDICT. Lightburst (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I have found it trivially easy to find sources examining the utility of study hall as an element of education. I have added three the article. BD2412 T 03:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, WP:HEY, and WP:NEXIST. There's a huge number of good sources online, and nominating this is carelessness. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a bit, and it still needs more citations, but it clearly is a topic with plenty of sourcrs, and it passes GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why was this relisted? The nominator withdrew the nomination. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changed my Ivote to get out of the way. WP:SKCRIT is met with the nominator's withdrawal. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) b uidhe 19:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vince's Devils[edit]

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

Fails WP:PWSTABLE. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm honestly not particularly familiar with WP:PWSTABLE or Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Notability for that matter (at a glance it seems this subject matter passes at least the first of the two criteria listed in WP:PWSTABLE) but looking at the article itself, it seems to have enough significant coverage in secondary reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Since WP:N is one of the defining policies of Wikipedia, whereas WP:PWSTABLE seems to be an essay providing advice/opinions about notability, I'm inclined to think that this article passes enough muster that it deserves to be kept. — Hunter Kahn 15:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does not matter if it meets WP:PWSTABLE if it meets WP:GNG since that trumps any other argument that could be made. This really seems to be a total misunderstandign of how the wikipedia guidelines work and should really be a snow keep. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources doen't work. Also, most part of the sources look like weekly TV reports of RAW, but not focused con the subject, the stable, instead the whole TV show. Other sources are interviews with the wrestlers, but it doesn´t mention the stable The wrestlers are notable, but I don't see the stable as notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources only have to be non-trivial coverage, they don't have to focus exclusively on the subject. It appears to pass WP:GNG which takes precedence over other guidelines or essays. Additionally, while I am not a wrestling fan, it appears that they meet criteria 1 for WP:PWSTABLE anyway "have appeared consistently as a tag team or group over the course 3 months for one of the above-mentioned professional wrestling promotions". IphisOfCrete (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hunter Borgia Venedict (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG per the sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Analog Horror, (Speak) 02:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GNG claim is bolstered by WP:LASTING coverage from Rolling Stone in 2016. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obscene Phone Caller[edit]

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

Message I left at talk page. Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I reviewed the article.

In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on a topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. If you feel that the subject of the article can meet wikipedia's notability guidelines, may I suggest that you bolster the article in those areas. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent secondary published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. Neither the sources nor the body of the article has substantive coverage of this topic. My opinion is that this should be moved into a section in the artist's article and this one deleted.

I'll nominate the article for the articles for deletion process which means that members of the community will decide. If I can be of assistance, or if there are any questions, or if you would like me to review the article after any changes are made, please ping me or write me on my talk page.

--North8000 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody noted that I was only very general in writing my reasons for nomination. More specifically, regarding wp:GNG, IMO the best source is more about the artist than the song. The #2 checkable source just had a short article about it being banned. The likely #3 was to the sales page of a book which said that it had info on every Jackson song. Regarding the SNG, for songs, the salient point there is that if there is insufficient coverage to create an in-depth article it is better that the song be covered under the artist or album. With the article being 6 months sold and 95% consisting of a summary of two reviews, the discussed alternative of coverage under the artist or album seemed appropriate. Sorry that I didn't have more of this in the nomination. This was my take on it during working to do new page curation / review as well as possible. Feel free to decide whatever you think is best and any outcome would be fine with me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSONGS, as it charted on Billboard. While that alone does not make it unimpeachably notable, Rolling Stone was still talking about it in 2016, which is a strong indicator of lasting notability. And there is a lot of contemporary coverage on Newspapers.com and the Internet Archive, see for example [28] [29] [30] This is pre-internet age stuff so it is not going to be easy to find sources on Google. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction re. North8000's comment: the page was created as a redirect 6 months ago, but it was only turned into an article yesterday. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONGS, because the song charted, contemporary reviews, and Rolling Stone talking about it thirty years later. I used SpicyMilkBoy's link to a contemporary Cash Box review, and added a quote to the page in the Reception section. It's a very positive review: "This is a song that listeners will be humming in the summer of '84, a song with hooks so sharp that no one can easily avoid them." The nomination didn't actually cite any reason for nominating the article, except a vague wave at WP:Notability; the sources and chart positions clearly show that the topic meets that standard. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song has a couple of sources which explains some details about it, including reviews from critics, and also charted. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONGS. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not the strongest GNG case, but given its age I think the sources are just enough, especially considering that it reached the Top 40 on the Hot 100 chart and reached the top 10 on a subsidiary chart. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Reader[edit]

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

Of no notable significance deserving of a Wikipedia page. There are also hints of advertising (first edit 86260199). The page was created when Wikipedia was first developing, and this article looks like it slipped through the cracks. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 01:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, pretty much an advertisement. The bottom 5 ELs, linking to the product's functionalities, makes this a clear case of an advert. Plus, the first reference is clearly dependent (fails WP:IS) and the second ref is in no way related to the subject. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 02:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meshanticut Interchange[edit]

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

Generic highway interchange, no evidence of notability, sources given do not discuss it, no substantive search results. Reywas92^Talk 01:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOROAD. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 02:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:N Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, could not find significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am disregarding the keep votes, as they are explicitly basing their arguments on social media supporting a notability claim, which is not a valid argument (in my opinion resorting to these arguments actually helps demonstrate the opposite). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Piggott[edit]

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

Para sports person for whom there are no refs showing notability that meet WP:NSPORT . The author has has twice moved the article from Draft space to Main space without any review. No doubt an accomplished swimmer but certainly not yet notable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is well sourced. Also technically on the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) there is no “swimming” section. Unless proven otherwise, this is a keep for me.Elijahandskip (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true the article has very many sources,(although many are trivial social media YouTube etc) but those that are acceptable sources fail to establish notability. He has not competed for his country at national or international level, a requirement for (probably) all sports. This article fails to meet even the basic criteria of WP:NSPORT. If he were to get selected for the Olympics then no doubt notability would be assured, but at present it is certainly too soon Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artical is well sourced. Social media and YouTube links should be valid as they show evidence of competing on a international stage. Okay the athlete may be ranked under home club rather than Wales but it is the same for every athlete. The athlete has been to an Olympic trials and competed for wales at UK school games. Also looking at many other pages there are athletes with less information on and who have done less. You don't have to be selected for the Olympics for notability to matter yes that would show in good favour for it but if you do a basic search of Tom Piggott Swimmer on google you can find quite a bit of information on him so that should show something. If your looking for international comps then look at www.mywelshpool.co.uk/viewernews/ArticleId/16590 as it shows one international meet that he went to okay granted not with wales but still gone international. I also see it as wrong if on the notability section there is nothing for swimmers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Pig1 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Random Pig1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. With the refbombing and trivia overload the article needs blowing up as it's an unsalvageable mess. We don't have to bother with that as he fails WP:GNG. Piggott has to compete at the Olympic Games or win a medal in the Paralympic Games to pass WP:NOLY.Dougal18 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would mean one rule for one and another rule for others. Surely that we are discussing this shows that he must be relevant with constant updates to the artical (that are not only me). Yes winning a medal would be ideal but the YouTube References have timestamps attached to them so people can find the footage. Social media is as great of a source as any as it comes directly from Tom Piggott himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random Pig1 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttps://lawyerdrummer.com/2016/01/music-producer-songwriting/

[2] ttps://cw.ua.edu/51786/opinion/music-producers-need-as-much-recognition-as-musical-artists/

[3] ttps://www.thefader.com/2017/06/27/sonny-digital-producer-union

[4] ttps://www.stereogum.com/1891681/the-rise-of-the-producer-as-a-lead-artist/franchises/the-week-in-pop/

[5] ttps://www.complex.com/music/2018/01/why-are-so-many-producers-getting-record-deals

[6] Hunt, Luke (17 November 2017). "The View From Asia's Largest Catholic News Agency". thediplomat.com.

[7] Kavi, Jose (18 October 2019). "Asia's largest Church news agency divided, readers baffled". Matters India.

[8] "Australian Jesuit to Head Asian Catholic News". www.archivioradiovaticana.va. 17 October 2008.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]