Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 March	20 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 merge to Facebook. or Criticism of Facebook, whatever works. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of the end of Facebook[edit]

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

No in-depth, substantial coverage as an independent concept; this is mostly a grab-bag of articles that make similar predictions. This could perhaps be covered in 1-2 sentences in the main articles, Facebook and Facebook Inc.. Neutrality^talk 23:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Facebook. The article as it stands is WP:OR - the sources do not discuss the subject of "predictions of the end of Facebook", they simply are predictions of the end of Facebook. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Facebook. Rumors are not encyclopedia worthy. Lightburst (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made this article. It passes WP:GNG, which is the criteria Wikipedia uses to decide if a topic merits inclusion. Opposition to this point has said nothing about WP:GNG, which should be the center of AfD discussions. A merge would not work because the main article Facebook is already WP:TOOLONG, so if we put this content there then that triggers the need to split this off into its own article. This deletion discussion is a proposal for Wikipedia:Removal of Wikipedia articles on notable topics. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources demonstrate in-depth, substantial coverage as an independent concept? Neutrality^talk 23:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: Here are the references in the current article version.

special:permalink/946407733#References

I feel that they all qualify as WP:Reliable sources for establishing WP:GNG. Since you ask for me to present a source for discussion let's try

Shaw, C. Mitchell (2 April 2018). "Is This the Beginning of the End of Facebook?". The New American. John Birch Society.

In what ways do you disagree that this source and content fails to contribute toward establishing notability for this topic? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the John Birch Society's newsletter is not a reliable source. And in any case, this is just an example of a prediction of the end of Facebook — it's not an in-depth coverage of "predictions of the end of Facebook" as an independent topic. Neutrality^talk 18:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am in error about the title. These subject of these cited sources is actually the "End of Facebook". You and SpicyMilkBoy are correct that these articles do not discuss "predictions of Facebooks end". One possible fix could be renaming the article to "Facebook's end", which is actually the subject of each of these articles. To what extent does that resolve the concern? Are you willing to say whether these cited sources share the same subject matter? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Facebook. A lot of this honestly feels like an essay or piece of original research; it doesn't warrant a standalone article. The fact that one of the sources is John Birh Society is pretty bad as well, but even without that source this is at best a facet of Facebook rather than a standalone topic. Classic WP:FORK problem. Michepman (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality and Michepman: The John Birch magazine is a 40-year old monthly publication with a conservative bias. It seems reliable to me for presenting the conservative perspective. Can you say why you find it inappropriate here? Other sources include Forbes, biased to promote capitalist business interest, Vanity Fair and Mashable, biased for pop and tech culture, and the Catholic Online, biased toward a religion. This seems to me like an article where established mainstream demographics of various backgrounds can use journalism to present their thoughts on topic. What reason is there to avoid showing the diversity in the perspectives of the cited sources? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not the place to predict the future (see section 3 of the guideline). -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be well-referenced to good sources. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but I don't see any fundamental reason this can't exist as a stand-alone article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE. This information is better off suited to a page like Criticism of Facebook. As of now, people are not going to find the information in this page clearly. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Facebook per WP:NOPAGE. No need to keep a prediction page. Jai49 (talk) 10:31, 27 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 10:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Hunt (Rush song)[edit]

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

Non-notable album track, did not chart, did not achieve widespread fame. Sources talk about it only in passing, as part of a concert or album review. Fails WP:NSONG. (Note that this article is part of larger effort by User:Danieleb82 to put all of Rush's songs into the encyclopedia, using sockpuppets to evade his ban. The sockpuppet User:Buttletsaregone created the page.) Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Drmies who developed the article into its present form. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also on behalf of the 2,400 people who saw this at DYK. Also, there's coverage and stuff. Come on now Binksternet. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not prepared to !vote yet, but the material about the song in Rush and Philosophy is more than passing mentions and certainly not as part of an album (or concert) review. Rlendog (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a section about this song in Rush FAQ well beyond a passing mention and which is not an album review.Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The material in Rush and Philosophy and Rush FAQ is certainly more than passing mentions and not an album review. With that plus the other coverage in the article, which is admittedly less substantial, this meets NSONG. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 20 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 procedural close as the page is a draft, not an article. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Glycintennial[edit]

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

This page doesn't seem to be neutral, doesn't meet the criteria for significance, and feels very much like an advertisement. It doesn't meet the criteria for CSD. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 23:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 23:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest procedural close as misplaced. Draftspace articles should be taken to WP:MFD instead. --Finngall ^talk 23:54, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Derby Award for Best Supporting Actress[edit]

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

Gold Derby Awards was deleted by Afd, so all its subsidiary lists should go too. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Added after TH1980's lvote:

Note: Gold Derby Award for Best Director was already nominated, and the Afd discussion is still open. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are a lot more, ~~but I don't have time right now to nominate them all~~ which I've now added. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Derby Awards (2nd nomination). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the successful nom for the parent's article; a webforum award with no actual known true parameters and likely no acknowledgement from the awarded about their wins. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Brojam (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also these related drafts: Draft:Gold Derby Award for Best Drama Series, Draft:Gold Derby Award for Best Movie/Limited Series Actor, and Draft:Gold Derby Award for Best Drama Actress. - Brojam (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all due to lack of notability. I don't see how redirects would be very helpful because these aren't currently mentioned in the target article. b uidhe 04:57, 24 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShareLaTeX[edit]

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

Came here via a Teahouse question asking about Overleaf (a similar service who bought ShareLaTeX). The problem is notability. There does not seem to be any sources meeting WP:NSOFT: the only non-dead, non-primary ref is [1] and it is a passing mention. You can find a couple tutorials and institution announcements (e.g. CERN) about the software but nothing that would qualify as in-depth coverage AFAICT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)~~ - removed by David Eppstein[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NORG; nn as a WP:NSOFT either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ShareLaTeX is widely used in academia. According to a reliable source such as TechCrunch they are well known. I might consider moving it into Draft:Overleaf because they have been sold and make this article a redirect in the future, but for now keep it. Streepjescode (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant part of that article reads, in full, Elsewhere, he [Alberto Pepe] lists Sharelatex.com and Writelatex.com as two “well-known competitors” for disciplines like physics and mathematics, where scientists use the LaTeX scientific documentation format to author their papers. Not only is this a passing mention, but it is not even TechCrunch's opinion that ShareLaTeX is "well-known". (FWIW Overleaf is "well-known" in the labs I went through in recent years, but it does not mean it should have a Wikipedia article.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, doesn't meet NSOFT standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep techcrunch source is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 09:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be multiple reliable sources. Anyway, WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says TechCrunch isn't good for determining notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in depth coverage, it's all PR and WP:MILL announcements. Praxidicae (talk) 12:35, 26 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Grimshaw[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:NCOLLATH Mightytotems (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFOOTY fails women's leagues and players: THAT IS CLEAR. This footballer plays in the top league in France. If someone is willing to do due diligence in parsing French news, the article can be expanded further and references improved per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We have these rules to limit most coverage to fully pro leagues. If a league is not fully pro we should not try to include its players. If you want logic and parity go after some of the virtually unsourced articles on one game plays, do not try to flood us with even more articles on not-fully pro players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the nonsensical advice, John, but I'll stick with WP:GNG. For some reason that guideline is not mentioned at all in the editors' mass proposed deletions, though they are well aware of its existence and precedence over FOOTY essays. WP:NFOOTY is unreliable. A league that's on the list in 2016 is removed based on a "consensus" of two editors... discussions buried in Talk page archives, and then players' articles created in 2016 are suddenly mass deleted in 2020... Just work on updating the articles with references, friends. Hmlarson (talk) 22:41, 23 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Léa Khelifi[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY Mightytotems (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 13:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about semi-pro women's footballer which satisfies WP:GNG. I added some references including in-depth coverage from Le Républicain Lorrain and Le Parisien. Khelifi has been an important player in France's D1 and already has trained with the French senior side. Jogurney (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi-pros are inherently not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are thousands of articles about semi-pro footballers, most of them played in FIFA internationals or Olympic finals, but not all. Do you really think we should delete an article like Sailen Manna because he was a semi-pro player? If the article satisfies the GNG, there's plenty of consensus for considering it notable. Jogurney (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Have to concur with Jogurney here; WP:NFOOTY clearly states that even those who fail could still satisfy WP:GNG (see also WP:WOSO). You can debate and disagree about whether this article satisfies GNG (I clearly did since I nominated it for deletion), but your comment about semi-pro is wrong and could systematically bias against female footballers or footballers playing in eras before professionalization or countries with less professionalization. Mightytotems (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is one of the most unwise things in that horrid guideline. We should only allow articles on football players who pass the football guideline. GNG has been so broadly interpreted that if taken the way some people interpret it we would have an encyclopedia full of non-notable people who once or twice got written in a hyper local newspaper. We need to be reasonable, and failing to pass the absurdly broad football guideline should exclude all football players who don't from inclusion, unless they have a claim to notability totally unrelated to football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Johnpacklambert: Your personal feelings about WP:NFOOTY aside, we're here to discuss deletion based on current guidelines. I too think NFOOTY is not great (though for totally different reasons, it sounds like), but the place for that discussion is not here. Mightytotems (talk) 18:13, 23 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn River Music and Arts Festival[edit]

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

A local festival with no evidence of any secondary coverage outside of local area. Policy on festivals suggests that local listings-type coverage is WP:ROUTINE Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I feel the need to point out that coverage by a local chamber of commerce or PRWire-type coverage is not independent of the subject. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 22 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Cubana[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The sources cited in the article are either unreliable or primary. This article looks more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedia article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obi Cubana, CEO of Cubana Group is a very notable Nigerian, it is quite unfortunate most of the news item on him seem promotional. The press finds interest in his wealth more than personality. In addition, Google has more credible news on him as shown here. Geezygee (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly promotional , and borderline notability at best. I see no basis for assuming the Cubana group is even notable, let alone notable enough to let us assume its ceo is notable also. DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cubana Group is the owner of all the Cubana Clubs which is known to every Nigerian. They are Nigerians only partner to Martell Geezygee (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geezygee: Can you provide a reliable source to support your statement about Cubana Clubs being known to every Nigerian? Being "known by every Nigerian" isn't a valid notability criteria. FYI, popularity is not synonymous with notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Versace1608 , below are sources to cement my claims

https://www.businessamlive.com/lagos-state-seals-off-multi-billion-naira-nigerias-upcoming-biggest-night-club-cubana-in-ikeja-gra/
https://www.livinspaces.net/projects/architecture/a-look-inside-cubana-lagos-a-luxury-nightlife-destination-designed-by-andrezini/
https://food.jumia.com.ng/blog/the-best-nightclubs-in-lagos-8103
https://www.sunnewsonline.com/cubana-club-opens-in-lagos/
https://www.pulse.ng/news/metro/new-entrant-when-lagos-stood-still-for-cubana-lagos-grand-opening/d1s2r6h
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/02/cubana-lagos-retains-top-spot/
http://samgist.com/cubana-unviels-his-night-club-at-enugu/
https://hotels.ng/places/lounge/491-cubana-lounge-abuja
https://nightlife.ng/exclusive-photos-club-pablo-cubana-shut-lagos-last-week/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iiubd7FQ_qQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MNkTs4elds

Geezygee (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geezygee: With the exception of Pulse Nigeria and Vanguard, the remaining sources you cited here are not reliable. Even if these two sources were "enough" to establish the company's notability, that doesn't explain how the CEO is notable. A CEO isn't notable simply because he is the CEO of a notable company. You need to keep in mind that notability cannot be inherited. You've failed to demonstrate how the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Which criterion of WP:GNG and WP:PERSON do you think the subject meets? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Versace1608 , he is a recipient of the Who is Who Awards, this the Who is Who Awards https://www.google.com/search?q=WHO+is+WHO+Awards&rlz=1C1CHWL_enGH822GH822&oq=WHO+is+WHO+Awards&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59.1127218j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 and https://www.modernghana.com/nollywood/35389/abuja-city-to-host-who-is-who-awards-as-organisers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geezygee (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falls short of WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC & WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom and has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 02:47, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of census divisions of Canada by population[edit]

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

Census districts are usually non notable under WP:GEOLAND. Can’t find any evidence why this should be an exception. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Census Districts are (almost) all municipalities of some kind - either upper-tier municipalities (where it's a two-tieer system) or the single-tier municipalities. It could be renamed List of top-level municipal divisions of Canada by population, but that's not really a good name. Tompw (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. These are not census "districts" in the UK sense of the term (=tracts), which is what Cardiffbear88 is talking about. In Canada, "census divisions" is the overarching term for counties and county equivalents, such as regional municipalities and independent cities, not local enumeration subdivisions of a municipality — that is, the things here are not equivalent to the 48 subdivisions of Oxford that are mentioned in the UK section of census tract, they're equivalent to all of Oxfordshire (and Yorkshire and Kent and London). I'm certain that even Cardiffbear88 would never argue that Oxfordshire is non-notable — it's not that these are non-notable things, it's that Canada actually uses this term a little bit differently than how Cardiffbear interpreted it (the reason we use this umbrella term being that not all of them are actually called "counties", even if counties are still what they are functionally.) Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep What Bearcat said. Geoland says "census tracts" are usually not notable, so this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the list contains, and you should withdraw it. These are equivalent to counties in the US, though in not all provinces do they align with local governments. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat and Reywas92.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:04, 20 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) 20:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rushan Ziatdinov[edit]

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

An industrial engineering professor. Does not cross the threshold for 100-citation papers.(he has 1 paper with 65 though). Other than that, the article seems to have COI, because no one writes "Quotations" about a engineering professor unless they are the same person or someone working for him. Apparently he also hosts a website on which he shares apps related to modelling , I'm not sure if that puts him in the notable category. Daiyusha (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations too low for WP:PROF#C1 and no evidence of passing any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Written as if it was a resume and fails WP:NACADEMIC Edi7* ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 11:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly written by someone with a COI. No indication that WP:PROF is passed on any point. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF and WP:NOTRESUME. Even arguendo that he barely passes the Prof Test somehow, which I do not concede, this is not an article but a resume. Everybody, especially those with a doctorate, knows in 2020 that Wikipedia is a charity, not a free web host for your resume like LinkedIn, Facebook, or Indeed. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 22 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. Consensus is for deletion at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chyzzi[edit]

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

The subject does not meet a single criterion of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article are either primary sources or promotional links. The awards the subject won is not a notable award. The subject is an unknown figure in the Nigerian music industry. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Every single information used in my research for this article was collected via Google and seem very notable, fellow contributors can have a look here. Geezygee (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject of the article falls short of WP:NMUSIC & general notability guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet imclusion standards for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 23 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 deleted by an Admin per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sepehr Salehi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. All references are copies of the same press release in different unreliable sources, a video clip from a self-upload site and a promotionally written IMDB page. His only claim to fame is having 1.2 million followers on Instagram but given the complete lack of coverage outside of paid press and self-published works it's very possible that Salehi simply bought a bunch of followers. GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. All sources on this "media personality" are unreliable blogs, typical industry listings, and self-created press releases. This Wikipedia article is just part of the self-promotional effort and was probably created by a user with a conflict of interest. Until this person's media career takes off for real, Wikipedia is not a promotional service. When searching, note that there are other people of the same name with LinkedIn accounts and the like. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Created by a blocked user. Analog Horror, (Speak) 20:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The subject might meet criterion 2 of WP:ENT given his social media following, but fails WP:GNG, as far as I can tell. He has been in a couple of big films, although his roles seem to have been relatively minor. It's a bit WP:TOOSOON for an article on the subject, I think. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:41, 20 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Magdy Elhusseiny Mahmoud[edit]

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

None of the clubs he has played for are listed at WP:FPL, so he likely fails WP:NFOOTY. Hog Farm (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom. Mightytotems (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, it does pass NFOOTY. He has played in the Egyptian Premier League which is FPL. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @KingSkyLord: Has anyone been able to verify this player's playing history via reliable sources (e.g., Soccerway)? I just tried and could not. Mightytotems (talk) 18:10, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesysco[edit]

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

At the moment, the article exists only as an anti-Nemesysco hit piece. I tried to find sources to consider a rewrite, but nearly everything available was either a press release, a (likely paid) interview, or a promotional piece masquerading as an article. Though a search for it's name reveals many results, the only ones that can be considered independent, reliable, verifiable, and secondary are passing mentions. Nemesysco does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Vermont (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm puzzled by the suggestion that there are not enough sources to meet the notability threshold, especially when this relatively short article already has 11 independent sources cited. The very first one, for instance, is an academic journal article, and its treatment of Nemesysco can hardly be considered "passing." The article is an analysis of the reliability of Nemesysco products, and it uses the word "Nemesysco" 15 times. The article from Science also checks all the boxes for the WP:CORP notability guidelines. I'd be disinclined to change my vote unless someone can explain to me what is wrong with those two sources, at the very least.

Having reviewed all the sources, I'd categorize this not as "an anti-Nemesysco hit piece," but an article about a company that reliable sources agree makes shitty products. As long as those reliable sources are cited -- and they are -- this page is no better a candidate for deletion than Bernie Madoff, snake oil, or astrology. 2600:1702:16E1:68E0:E82A:BF59:4F06:37DD (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the coverage is trivial. Including the analysis of their products. WP:NCORP clearly states that the person who is writing about the product had to try it themselves and it seems like none of the sources did. For instance while the academic journal article does mention Nemesysco and their products multiple times, it is only in the context of quoting company press releases about those products. Therefore, the source is not reliable. The same also goes for the other sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be worth taking a closer look at the cited sources. The first one gives the company's product extensive treatment, from pages 179 to 187, including a discussion of the company, its founder, and the reviewers' experience analyzing and running the code on which the product is based. The DOJ report also includes an extensive discussion of the product (pages 14-19), and it includes detailed reporting on the results of the authors' own tests of the validity of results obtained from Nemesysco's products. The same is true of the University of Florida study (pages 35-41).

In any event, I'm having trouble finding where WP:NCORP says that any such rule exists. That rule wouldn't make any sense anyway. If the WHO countries seeded a joint venture to find a COVID-19 vaccine, would that venture not be notable until the vaccine was injected into the arm of a reliable source? Is SpaceX's notability contingent on whether a reporter has personally gone to space in one of its spaceships? Can he just ride the space shuttle, or does he have to fly it personally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:16E1:68E0:F0F8:FE24:FC05:F994 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the company is mentioned in the articles, but all the content is from press releases and similar sources that don't count. Not from a secondary neutral perspective. For instance the semanticscholar.org study only seems quote their website and directly from them when they are mentioned. For instance "All this is possible, according to Nemesysco" Isn't the authors' own point of view and they aren't claiming it is. Also three times the company is mentioned it's cited at the end as "(Nemesysco home page)." So it's not worth a closer look, because I already looked and they clearly don't qualify. I'd also say the same for the ncrjrs.gov website since they are connected to the company through giving them a grant and are a not neutral buyer of their products. The DOJ also genearlly has a large invested interested in making various lie detector methods seem creditable. So, that source is a massive no go IMO. On what WP:NCORP says, product reviews (which the articles are structured as) have to be significant for it to qualify as notable and it says "Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product." Also it says "the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications." I'd say the DOJ website just that. I think Space X's rockets and Covid-19 vaccines (which doesn't even exist yet, and it's not a company or product anyway but whatever) would qualify under the whole "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, etc" thing. But notability guidelines for products are different then those for organizations anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I think I see where the disagreement is coming from. It seems like you're treating these sources as product reviews, which seems like the wrong way to handle them. They are articles from peer-reviewed journals, which are the most reliable of WP:SOURCETYPES.

Where I think I may be starting to agree with you, though, is an the distinction you're making between discussion of the company and the discussion of its products. Maybe it would make more sense to convert the article to one about LVA, the primary product that these sources are discussing? 2600:1702:16E1:68E0:78CF:A909:57AC:4E33 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Excellent analysis by Adamant1. The references do not appear to contain sufficient independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 24 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Filmax is a Pakistani first Movie Channel which shows Hollywood English Movies in Urdu dubbed. It also shows Animated movies in Urdu dubbed. The Channel was launched in July 2018.[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygene (TV channel)[edit]

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

Defunct channel, no coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I barely found anything about the channel. It doesn't even indicate the channel's owner. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I recently visited the list of Pakistani TV Channels. The channel is owned by Classic Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., which doesn't have an article of its own. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:42, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ILIM TV[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sole reference is to a page that hasn't been updated since 2003 and doesn't include this channel. The channel's own website is 404 and even the version archived at the link in the article showed an "under construction" page in 2018. even social media sites are 404 or empty. If this ever was a real station, it has long since faded with no apparent notice. If this is closed as "Delete", then Template:Television in Pakistan will also need to be updated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent, reliable and significant coverage.Jai49 (talk) 11:19, 27 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) 20:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lauderdale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, having only received NFL transactional coverage and no collegiate coverage (played at FCS New Hampshire as an offensive lineman). Only played professionally for the Alliance of American Football, which is not enough to qualify for WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable amateur player, has yet to play professionally. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH. Ostealthy (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON (NFL practice squad does not suffice) or WP:NCOLLATH. And, fair or not, collegiate offensive linemen rarely receive significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some coverage here, for instance [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Should be enough to keep. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First link is the player's 49ers bio from the team, which is not an independent source. Second link is a brief transactional post from his hometown newspaper. Third link is from a 49ers fan blog. Fourth link is from a Jaguars blog. Fifth link is a transactional post from the Jaguars-specific USA Today subwebsite. Sixth link is from a 49ers blog. Seventh link is from a Saints SB Nation blog. Eighth link is a seven-sentence transactional post from a hometown newspaper. Ninth link includes one paragraph briefly mentioning he was on the 49ers' injured reserve list during this past year's Super Bowl. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for football players. The presented sources have been shown to not be adding to notability, since they are employer pages or blogs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and coverage is not up to the level needed to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 26 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 deleted U5 (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 23:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nutra LifeKeto[edit]

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

Promotional Page. Waterederet (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this user page needs to be listed in WP:MFD. Lightburst (talk) 16:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal News[edit]

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

Non-notable news channel. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the three references, one is to the channel's own website, one is to a regulatory authority that only confirms the channel has been licensed, and one is to YouTube. Searching on the channel's name in English is effectively impossible and if there is significant coverage available in Punjabi or Urdu this can be added at those wikis. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC) edited to add: If this is closed as "Delete", then Template:Television in Pakistan will also need to be updated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:55, 26 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) 20:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squaw Place, Wyoming[edit]

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

GMaps labels the driveway to this place as "Squaw Ranch Headquarters Rd", and I don't see anything that says it isn't a ranch. In spite of a slew of false hits about getting rid of squaw placenames, this gets fewer than usual hits, and they are the usual clickbait and gazetteer entries. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lies, all lies in this junk Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG - it's a ranch, one of hundreds that I've driven past from visiting my sister in Laramie on the way to Devil's Tower. There's no permanent population except for pronghorns. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:56, 22 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) 20:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Humphrey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Played at Division II Shepherd University, can't find much coverage on him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the surface, it looks like there are sources, but they are all merely WP:ROUTINE transaction reports. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur athlete, has yet to play professionally. Hasn't received extensive coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Ostealthy (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting any reasonable football notability guidelines. Of course our guidelines are not at all reasonable, they are overly broad treating every pro player as default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are either not independent or do not represent significant coverage. Also does not pass either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Finally, my searches did not turn up significant coverage in independent, reliable sources of the type required to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:48, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheWineKone[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not reliably sourced as passing WP:ENTERTAINER. As always, YouTubers are not automatically notable just because their YouTube content exists, but rather must clear WP:GNG on the sourcing before they're notable enough for Wikipedia articles -- but five of the nine footnotes here are his own or other people's YouTube videos, one is his "about me" profile on his own self-published blog, and one is a corporate press release, which means seven of the nine footnotes are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. And of the two references that are actually to real media, one just glancingly namechecks his existence a single time in the process of not being about him, and the other doesn't even do that, but simply verifies a stray fact about somebody else without even mentioning the subject of this article at all. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. No significant independent coverage, doesn't meet WP:GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 23 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) 20:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha Raj (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I've tried looking not only in English, but also translating the name into Hindi and into Punjabi, and the only hits seem to be for Rekha Raj (writer) and the Bollywood actress Rekha, with numerous links to YouTube videos of her songs in films. But neither of them are this person, and the two sources cited are nothing more than passing mentions – the second one is a dead link but archived here [11] and is actually the web page for a programme of events hosted by the Communist Party of India, which isn't particularly strong indication of notability. Richard3120 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: cursory source searches reveal little golden rule-compliant coverage. Both of the two sources cited fail the third requirement of providing significant coverage as she is not the primary topic of coverage in them, therefore this appears to be a general notability guideline failure. I also note that none of the achievements asserted in the article, even if sourced, go towards making a case for notability under the music biography notability guideline. SITH (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject has not been discussed in reliable sources to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:32, 22 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) 02:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Barlow[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a comedian, not reliably sourced as passing WP:ENTERTAINER. The only notability claim here is that he was associated with a small local comedy show, and the only reference for it is a Q&A interview in the local alternative weekly, which is not a notability-securing source all by itself as it represents him talking about himself in the first person rather than third parties analyzing the significance of his work. Further, the article has been flagged as needing additional sources since 2008 -- but the only new sources that have ever been added at all were actually an accidental conflation with a different Brian Barlow, which have since been removed. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more reliable source coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to a source showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 20 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) 20:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Macias[edit]

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

Promotional article created by SPA. References are substantially self-refs, literally press releases or to non-RSes. No significant third-party RS coverage sufficient to source a BLP, let alone one of this length. WP:BEFORE shows only press releases and promotional coverage. This is the cut-down version, before the worst of the promotional adds were removed (then restored by another SPA). David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (1) We have a fairly strong consensus that producers are WP:MILL and thus almost never notable, and (2) everybody knows in 2020 that we are a charity, not your resume's webhost. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly not everyone knows we are not a resume webhost since people are still adding bio articles that are their resume.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG just a promotional piece for a PR company owner. Theroadislong (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the 'references' are crap - mentions in-name-only and some, not even that. David notMD (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone's spent a lot of time trying to find evidence of notability, and failed to come up with anything that qualifies. Maproom (talk) 08:38, 26 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caracoles[edit]

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

No source at all that supports this subject. See Talk:Caracoles Donald Albury 14:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Donald Albury 14:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The one source cited isn’t accessible to me and I wonder if it doesn’t just use the term ‘Caracol’ in passing. The external link provided doesn’t use the term. Searching in Spanish brings up a couple of tourist sites and blogs that use the term to describe natives of the islands, but that’s all. It seems to be more of a local nickname for the islanders than a specific ethnic group. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 26 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. This article was brought to AfD on the grounds that it does not meet NBASE. In this discussion, there is a clear consensus that the article does in fact satisfy NBASE. (non-admin closure) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Connors[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBASE, which requires reliable secondary source material PenulisHantu (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBASE#3, as he played in the Union Association, a defunct major league. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, meets WP:NBASE. Smartyllama (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASE. Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to have more that stat pages to preserve an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASE #3. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBASE #3. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His playing in a major league makes him notable. Alansohn (talk) 12:59, 26 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu Shetty[edit]

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

Article qualifies as “Unremarkable person” PageImp (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PageImp (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A previous discussion thread. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 17:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Jai49 (talk) 11:35, 27 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NORML South Africa[edit]

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

Reason (as posted at the article) Thanks for your work on this article. I just reviewed it as a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process.

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 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. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. In reviewing the article I see no coverage whatsoever of this type, nor anything that would indicate temporarily bypassing wp:GNG under a special notability guideline. I'm nominating it under Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion Process so the the community may decide. I also note that the article has been tagged for wp:notability concerns since December 2019, and PRODed in December 2019 with the tag removed with no work or changes addressing that issue since then. Also there are some concerns that the creator user name cannibispromoter obviously has wiki-experience, but only has 20 lifetime edits under that user name, all about the NORML organization. IMO it would be a better idea to merge this material into the top level NORML article. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sole reference in the article is to a single-issue website of very dubious RS status hiding behind the url of a legitimate news organization. Every other search result for the organization finds a source that is either not independent, not reliable, or both. No evidence it passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:57, 26 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 Jack Johnson discography#Singles. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Axe[edit]

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

(as posted at the article) Review under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process

Thanks for your work on this article. I just reviewed it as a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process.

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 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. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. In reviewing the article I see no coverage whatsoever of this type, nor anything that would indicate temporarily bypassing wp:GNG under a special notability guideline. I'm nominating it under Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion Process so the the community may decide. I also note that the article has been tagged for wp:notability concerns since November 2019 with no work or changes addressing that since then. Sincerely 12:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC) North8000

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: normally in a case like this you'd redirect the song to the parent album, but This Warm December: A Brushfire Holiday Vol. 3, created by the same editor, is also of very dubious notability and could well be deleted itself. Richard3120 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Jack Johnson (musician)~~Jack Johnson discography#Singles. Seems to be a part of a Jack Johnson-related WP:Walled garden created by Bigpickleman9999912. From what I can tell, Jack Johnson recorded this song as part of a holiday compilation called This Warm December produced by Brushfire Records which is notable chiefly for being owned by Jack Johnson and signing Jack Johnson's friends. No article in that chain (other than the artist himself) displays any evidence of notability and I question how they got past new article review. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC) edited to add agreement with Richard3120's proposed target. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Johnson discography#Singles. Completely fails WP:NSONG. Eggishorn is correct that the article creator seems intent on creating articles relating to Jack Johnson, however (non-)notable they may be. But I think a redirect to the discography section would be a better option, seeing as this song is mentioned there, but it's not mentioned in the Jack Johnson article. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 26 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 The Kid (1921 film). Clear consensus not to keep; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Hathaway[edit]

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

The person has not received significant attention in reliable sources. he is mentioned as a cast member, and his unverifiable status as last surviving cast member has been discussed on blogs, reddit, facebook, ... but nothing usable to base an enwiki article on that would pass WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand why I didn't see that this was deleted once before. I looked carefully before writing this article and can't understand how I didn't see the previous deletion. With that said, I certainly recognize that there isn't much out there on him and that he's notable for one movie. But being one of the oldest living silent film actors and being in a movie with Charlie Chaplin seems noteworthy enough for inclusion. I assumed this might get some pushback and I look forward to hearing others' opinions. I just think the checklist we go through for notability might not leave room for some individuals who really are worthy of inclusion. I look forward to the discussion and I'll try to improve it a bit now too. ChrisParker92 (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge or Redirect: While I appreciate the work ChrisParker92 is currently doing on the article, I doubt that there is enough material out there on the subject to sustain an article or to meet the relevant notability guidelines. If the consensus is to "Delete", then I would be happy for a Merge or a Redirect to the existing page on Charlie Chaplin's The Kid (1921 film). Dflaw4 (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to "The Kid" obviously makes sense. A merge not so much: the only thing worth noting would be that he has lived for a very long time afterwards, which is an utter "meh" (not for him or his family obviously, but for an encyclopedia). Fram (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, unless anything new turns up, I would think a "redirect" would be best, I agree. And I saw that The Kid page already notes the subject's longevity. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Last time we discussed deletion I was on the fence. No new notability has been brought forward this time, so I conclude we must maintain the previous determination of deletion. Binksternet (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect. No matter how notable something may sound in theory, a person still has to have reliable source coverage supporting their notability claim before they get a Wikipedia article for it. Having had an acting role as a baby is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appearing in a film as a baby does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the first article in 2014 and when it was deleted, I added the comment in the cast list that he is obviously still alive. It could make him notable that he is now among the last surviving silent film actors of all time, but the problem was that there were no journalistic sources that linked other articles about Silas Hathaway with security to the actor from The Kid. --Clibenfoart (talk) 09:18, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Zulkader Siddiqui[edit]

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

Promotional article about the subject. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:ANYBIO. Also, the article was written by User talk:Techcorp which is the company founded by the subject [12]. Störm (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It's a giant wall of spam, his family tree, his resume, his random ideas, and other nonsense. He seems to be totally run of the mill and thus failing WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Everybody knows in 2020 that we are a charity, not your personal for-profit web-host. What little information might some hint of a bare whisper of notability is a coat-rack for all sorts of other stuff. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 23 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 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzil Haider Usmani[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable chemist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. With three publications on groundwater quality that have over 100 citations each, I think he is borderline for WP:PROF#C1. What pushes me to weak delete rather than weak keep is that our article has no sources with enough depth to form the basis of an article, and I couldn't find anything better in searching the internet. Although citation numbers can provide evidence of impact, we can't base an article on numbers alone. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 23 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oligoisolating language[edit]

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

Per WP:Notability. This near-orphaned page is supposedly about a linguistic topic, yet this term is totally absent in reliable sources about linguistics. A Google scholar search[13] only yields one hit from a journal. I cannot say much about the journal, but the fact that the authors have more than one citation from WP actually rules this out as a WP:RS. A general Google search yields more hits[14] but virtually all of these are blogs and other self-published pages about constructed languages.

The term "oligoisolating language" was apparently coined in conlanger-circles in relation to Toki Pona, by analogy to "oligosynthetic language" (which itself is a highly obscure topic in linguistics). Toki Pona is in fact the only page that links to Oligoisolating language, next to a "see also"-entry in Oligosynthetic language. Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have not heard the term in my career as a descriptive linguist. That in itself would be a weak argument, but Austronesier has demonstrated convincingly that there are no relevant reliable sources on the term. That being the case, the page shouldn't really exist. Landroving Linguist (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had never heard of this term before, and after looking through some journal search results and reading the nomination, I doubt I will hear of it again. Not notable and should not be a standalone article. — Wug·a·po·des 18:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above. BD2412 T 18:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add This also includes by extension the redirect Oligoanalytic language which redirects to "Oligoisolating language". The term "oligoanalytic" is almost non-existent on Google[15]. –Austronesier (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only references I can find are self-published or published in (allegedly) predatory journals. It seems that no reliable sources exist. Cnilep (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we never publish original research, period. This might have been excused in 2006, but in 2020, it's inexcusable. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. It's not a notable concept. There are at least three wikis where people can go to write about oligoisolating languages, but outside of those communities the term will never gather any significant interest because it doesn't exist in natural languages. Therefore it can never pass the notability criterion. I'm curious though, what is a predatory journal?? —Soap— 21:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for the deletion of the redirect is that even though it originally redirected to the "proper" oligosynthesis article, there is no mention of the concept there and likely has never been unless it was added and quickly reverted. —Soap— 21:20, 23 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phallon Tullis-Joyce[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:NCOLLATH Mightytotems (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 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 delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akshara Reddy[edit]

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

She has won a non-notable beauty contest, no other achievements so far. None of her movies released yet. Fails WP:ACTOR / WP:NMODEL. No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG as well. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not meet WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Decent amount of coverage about the subject herself including 1, 2, 3, 4. -M.Nelson (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes suggests to me in competitions that we should delete this page since the competition owon here is not a very well known one. It also is key as why we should not have winners of sub-national beauty pagents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 25 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 08:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wade Edwards[edit]

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

There have been no sources in this article (except IMDB) since 2009. There are no secondary sources that would indicate notability. Article appears to have been created by someone with COI issues Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles lacks even one reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any sources. Article doesn't cite any sources and it's been more than 10 years since its creation, which fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED — BriefEdits (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:MILL and WP:PEOPLE. Thousands of people have created short films and led marketing at a film festival for them, thus "getting" an IMdB page. For example, my domestic partner produced a film and went to Cannes Film Festival to market it. I'm so proud he has an IMdB page! We have the posters displayed in our co-op! But seriously folks ... he's not notable because of a short at the court metrage. I would also consider Stomp! Shout! Scream! to fail WP:NFILM. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is not supported by any sources or independent sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:CREATIVE. Sources can be added. StrayBolt (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - His notable works include Space Ghost Coast to Coast and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. StrayBolt (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StrayBolt these are all very tenuous sources, lots of passing mentions only. These do nothing to add to notability in my opinion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Most of the delete !votes predate the addition of significant sourcing to the article, and they generally do not really address the subject's notability. As a creator of several quite notable projects, it should also be clear that available sources regarding the subject's work can also serve as sources for the subject's bio, since his work his, after all, an integral part of his life. Wikipedia has an unfortunately sizeable cadre of editors who believe that celebrity journalism is the highest form of the craft, and that creators who simply create substantive, admirable work, especially those who work behing the camera, should be subordinated here to the unstable exhibitionists whose chaotic personal lives populate supermarkets tabloids and their slick-paper successors, even though the former provide much more traditionally encyclopedic value. The Film Threat interview is relatively lengthy and quite substantive; the Savannah newspaper is also substantive and nontrivial. There are also significant sources which identify the subject simply as "Jay Edwards" which slipped through the very cursory WP:BEFORE pretense underlying the nomination, such as [16] and [17]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE. He co-created Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Space Ghost: Coast to Coast, both notable works. The Creative Loafing, LA Weekly and Atlanta Journal-Constitution references demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a guy with a job; no independent significant coverage. Re: the sources cited above, 1) is an interview (does not qualify) and 2) was written by one of the subject's co-workers (not independent). The Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Space Ghost: Coast to Coast articles do not list him as a co-creator in their infoboxes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was not the sole creator, just one of the 'team'. Reasonably high-ranking, but notability should be then shown by in-depth coverage. Who calls him accomplished, significant, etc.? Unfortunately, the current sources don't seem to do so outside of some passing nods. I don't think this is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non-notable despite the new references Alpateya (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock for User:Dorama285. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these delete !votes have any real grounding in policy. "Just a guy with a job" is a consistent indicator of a poorly reasoned argument; being employed is hardly a bar to notability, and typically indicates that an editor believes a subject should not be notable despite meeting notability criteria. Asking "Who calls him accomplished, significant, etc"? shows a basic misunderstanding of notability; we cover hordes or middling musicians, mediocre actors, etc, because the purpose of Wikipedia is comprehensive coverage, not selective coverage of only those its editors consider "accomplished". Such comments show a distressing tendency to focus on celebrity biographies, and ignore the fact that notability is typically shared in common by creators and the significant work they have created, whether collaboratively or individually. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As improved, it's adequately sourced to pass WP:CREATIVE. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:42, 24 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doxa Kato Kamila F.C.[edit]

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

No apparent basis for notability. The club is an amateur club that just gained promotion to the Greek fourth division, an amateur competition. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the local media have an entire section devoted to media articles about this team. And I'm getting 764 Google News hits for "Δόξα Κάτω Καμήλας". Seems to be notable. Article can be improved. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:28, 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 21:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted previously, it's not difficult to find significant independent media coverage of this team to meet GNG- not surprising given they won the local championship last season, giving them the right I think (which they did not take) to play in the 2018–19 Greek Football Cup. Here's some recent examples one, two, three. Nfitz (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. Mightytotems (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is absolutely nothing significant on this club. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:41, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sumarni (politician)[edit]

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

This article is written by a now permanently blocked sockpuppet member of a paid editing ring. I think it should be speedily deleted, but my speedy was declined. A regency is a second order subdivision in Indonesia, roughly corresponding to a country in the US. Governors of states and similar first order subdivisions are assumed to be worth articles, but not county executives, even if their title is translated as "governor" . There is no evidence for notability otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if we want to preserve Wikipedia as what we intend it to be, we need to proactively remove articles created by those who are trying to twist it into being a modern who's who type pay to get in scheme where they add insult to injury by being the ones who collect the payment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I first edited the article, I thought that regents were assumed to be notable, but it turns out that they are not. I can't find enough reliable sources. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above arguments. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a regent is not a notable post. Paid-editing should never be accepted. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 14:08, 24 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) 20:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Charles II of England[edit]

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

Apparently random collection of some lines deriving from Charles II, who is the ancestor of a huge number of British aristocrats. Largely sourced to a genealogical directory which is not a reliable source: it was designed by a computer scientist to test how people use databases and was never designed to be an accurate repository. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was thinking the same when I looked at it a couple of days ago. There is not a single WP:RS for the whole thing, and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. For the main listings, it just duplicates what is, or should be, on the pages for the individual dukedoms created for his sons, while the list of others at the end is pretty random, and even if it can be documented, I am not sure a collection pages of people descended from (fill in the blank) is really encyclopedic, as opposed to just a trivial curiosity. Agricolae (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Firstly, this is a horrifically confusing mess of an article which doesn't even follow it's own scope. The article is defined as descendants of Charles II, but it could more accurately be described as "some male line descendants who held peerages (kind of)". It's not clear what the purpose of the article actually is, and it's likely because it's not following a well structured reliable source. Secondly, although a certain amount of genealogy is to be expected (encouraged even), when dealing with monarchs this article strays too far into the WP:NOTGENEALOGY category. Acceptable examples of genealogy could include Grandchildren of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which has a very clear defined scope with purpose. While I definitely think this article meets the criteria for deletion, I would be interested to see a similar article with a much narrower and purposeful scope, such as Illegitimate children of Charles II be created. Editing with Eric (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree fully with the comments above. What the article includes is rather random and heavily duplicated. Dunarc (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing irredeemably bad about this article. It has some synthesis, but soucres from other articles can be added. It would be a great pity to lose all of this information and formatting. Can it be userfied? Bearian (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Charles II notably had not legitimate children so that his brother inherited the throne. However he had a considerable number of illegitimate children, some of whom were granted titles of nobility and others married into the nobility. This potentially a notable subject. Unless we already have a page doing much the same thing, I see not reason why we should not keep it. I would have preferred it not to have the thumbnail portraits which tend to clutter the article, but this seems to be in vogue. One thin that may be wrong is that it thought that Prince Charles was also descended from Charles II, though the late Queen Mother. No objection to some pruning, Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Agricolae. The list falls under WP:NOTGENEALOGY and the intro is WP:SYNTHESIS. If a RS did happen to discuss this subject it might be better suited as a subsection of Charles II of England. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:07, 22 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 IDLC Finance Limited. @আফতাবুজ্জামান: although the close was redirect you are welcome to merge source material from page history. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 19:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDLC Securities Limited[edit]

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

This & following articles doesn't meet GNG and fails WP:NCORP: significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. ~~All~~ 90% sources listed in these articles are primary. I tried with English & Bengali name but found nothing other than some press releases &/or promotional stuff.

IDLC Finance Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IDLC Investments Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IDLC Asset Management Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect subidiaries to IDLC Finance Limited, then list that one here again. I don't like bundle noms, too easy for one subarticle to torpedo the others, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the reason i bundle together is that i notice someone trying to promote this company & its subsidiaries (possibly paid editing involved). As i said in my nomination they don't have significant coverage ... of the subject. I filled a Sockpuppet investigations & one active editor already blocked. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 05:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am totally amazed the nomination claims all sources are primary when links such as [18] from the financial express have link-rotted and been usurped. While such a link may have been primary I find it difficult to believe nominator has checked this out and the diligence of the nomination is thus at question. There's likely enough for a merge but I'm not prepared to do it so I wont vote it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: Thanks, i corrected my claim, not all but 90% sources are primary. But 1-2 source from financial express (other sources as well) does not demonstrate notability (fails WP:ORGCRITE), they are just some passing mention. for example:

IDLC Securities Limited have 17 sources, 10 are primary. Source no. 3, 4, 5 are about other company. Source no. 6 is a passing mention. Source no. 9 is a yellow page site, Source no. 15 & 16 are unrelated.
IDLC Investments Limited have 13 sources, 6 are primary. Source no. 1 is about their client, Source no. 2 & 3 doesn't work, Source no. 4, 6, 7 are passing mention.
IDLC Asset Management Limited have 15 sources, 5 are primary. Source no. 5 is about their client (same as avove), Source no. 7, 8 & 12 are listing site, Source no. 9 & 10 are same link & news about a signing deal, Source no. 11 is passing mention, Source no. 6, 13 & 15 are usual business reports.

None of IDLC subsidiaries doesn't demonstrate notability. They all are probably created by same person, see CU - only active accounts blocked already. Even though i nominate all for deletion, i would support all subsidiaries to merge with & redirect to parent company IDLC Finance Limited & I can help with merge. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (all): One recovered url seems not to mention subject, another was not recoverable. Too many problems and insufficient care to avoid WP:LINKROT, take trouble to enable DB:V, avoid promotion etc etc. WP:TNT job. No objection to a properly recreated article by a declared COI editor via AfC.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect subsidiaries (IDLC Investments Limited, IDLC Securities Limited, and IDLC Asset Management Limited) to parent company, IDLC Finance Limited. The subsidiary articles fail to demonstrate notability independent of the parent. The sources cited in them are almost exclusively press releases and other non-independent sources, and routine coverage or passing mentions of the sorts excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH from demonstrating notability. Keep parent company IDLC Finance Limited but stub it down as much as necessary (in the spirit of WP:TNT) to allay any concerns of promotionalism. The company is publicly traded on the Dhaka Stock Exchange,[19] is one of the larger financial companies in the country, and most importantly has received significant coverage in several academic journals that I've added to further reading. Redirects and a stub may require watching to ensure that a paid editor doesn't turn them back into advertising, but they are better encouragement to good faith editors to improve on a notable topic than red links would be. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect subsidiaries, as per Worldbruce. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:57, 28 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 04:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Vigna[edit]

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

Not notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Web hits amount to a few mocking blog posts and a couple of brief mentions in articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:AUTHOR. She is an American author, not English. There are reviews of her books at the New York Times and the Guardian, but not enough for an article. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she is covered in both the 1999 and 1979 editions of Something About the Author (hmm, red link, might see what I can do about that), so anyone with access to either of those will be able to expand the article. I've added a couple of PW reviews and the Observer piece found by StarryGrandma, and added the Children's Literature Wikiproject banner to alert interested editors. PamD 11:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give editors a chance to evaluate PamD's findings and changes, as the pro-delete comments came prior to that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, Vigna's books are held by hundreds of libraries ie. "Boot Weather", "When Eric's Mom Fought Cancer", "Grandma Without Me", "She's Not My Real Mother", "Mommy and Me By Ourselves Again", "I Wish Daddy Didn't Drink So Much" (over 400!), "Black Like Kyra, White Like Me" (over 300), "My Big Sister Takes Drugs", "Saying Goodbye To Daddy" (over 400), "Nobody Wants A Nuclear War", "My Two Uncles", "Gregory's Stitches", "Gregorio y Sus Puntos" (around 50, spanish version of previous title), reflecting that author is "well-known", now lets turn to reviews: Black Like Kyra, White Like Me oh look! it has a wikiarticle with multiple reviews! (i have wikilinked the title); Boot Weather - Publishers Weekly (here), Kirkus Reviews (here), The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books (here (p.160)), Cooperative Children's Book Center (here (a CCBC Choices 1989 book, p.14) School Library Journal, and Booklist (here (click on reviews button)), oh, wow! multiple reviews so entitled to its very own wikiarticle; Saying Goodbye To Daddy - Kirkus Reviews (here), Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (here), School Library Journal (listed here), included in numerous lists of books to assist grieving children ie. Help in coping: When someone dies in a road accident by Kristin Alilunas Rodgers of the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory (here), Allina Health (here), and the Tampa Bay Times (here), looks like another wikinotable book; I Wish Daddy Didn't Drink So Much - Kirkus Reviews (here), The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books ((p.87)), Single Parent (review listed here), has been evaluated as a part of university study (here); My Two Uncles - The New York Times (here), School Library Journal, and The Horn Book Magazine (here), Booklist (review listed here), Philadelphia Gay News (review listed here), Lambda Book Report (review listed here) and we have another wikinotable book. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Aryal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not appear to be notable (see previous AFD for detailed rationale). This article was refunded by (who I'm sure is a COI) editor and left alone after adding another batch of bad refs. My WP:BEFORE still couldn't dig enough (read any) evidence of notability. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Working from the bottom of the ref section up, I found several of the sources don’t even mention him. However there are clearly some sources. Whether they’re enough to support a BLP or not I’m less sure. Mccapra (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like the last incarnation of this article it suffers from ref bombing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:REFBOMBed article on a subject that fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. How is this guy at all notable? Please ping me if you find proof. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Sichuan[edit]

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

This article appears to be simply a collection of official announcement translation plus a table and an infobox, that doesn't actually have any encyclopedic content C933103 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response This characterisation is incorrect. The epidemiological case reports may be lengthy but the article included a few reactions and official measures, one criminal investigation case, and one other event related to law enforcement. Almost the same could be said for 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Macau and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Hong Kong. Rethliopuks (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. C933103 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. C933103 (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs a TNT for sure. Puts in far too many words what is in Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/China medical cases by province, basically WP:RAWDATA. Reywas92^Talk 05:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has the daily and total sub-provincial data, which that template which I maintained regularly does not contain. You're welcome to make a new template containing the daily sub-provincial data for Sichuan though. Rethliopuks (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would recommend either moving the case reports to other more appropriate places (like wikisource?) now, or summarize the information available in those case reports using other ways, so that the article could be read more comfortably. C933103 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs improvement, but there's no reason to assume that this article cannot be improved. Otherwise many U.S. state articles right now merit deletion.
WP:BEFORE C1.
"If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."
Examples of U.S. state articles whose content isn't encyclopaedic right now: Missouri; Arizona; Idaho. Rethliopuks (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "Government responses" section, along with the table, are salvageable, but the Epidemiological timeline and Events sections both need a Tsar Bomba. As with many U.S. states, we don't need government responses that aren't strict lockdowns / curfews to be clogging the mainland China main article. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give it a chance for potential expansion. The massive scale of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China means updating becomes unwiedly for areas with notable pandemic situations like Sichuan. Should there be problems in the article, then these could be fixed.JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a current situation facing by many countries and a current event that is happening have chances generates more independent significant coverage.Jai49 (talk) 10:34, 27 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 08:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Kumar Sharma (astrologer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has been written as a WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe, Can you please tell me where is the promotional tone in the article as you mentioned it is written as promotion. And did you go through all references? Please check again these resources which are on trusted websites and independent reliable. If you are not agree with any resource please explain why it is not fit for the article. I would focus you on his notable predictions for popular actors and worldwide coronavirus. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeotanPix (talk • contribs) 06:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a promotional piece and falling under WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I wonder who gives him the Dr tag. Is there any references for this claim? - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The9Man, you stated that article is promotional. Where is it promotional? Can you please explain? Did you go through all the references. I am sure you didn't check all the resources which are independent and reliable on trusted websites. Please check the list i mintoined above in my comment. If you are not agree with any resource please explain why it is not fit for the article. And for your information Prem Kumar Sharma is a PhD degree holder in Astrology, clearly mentioned on these websites: 1 2 3 4. That indicates he can write Dr before his name.NeotanPix (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NeotanPix: The all 4 links you mentioned are unrealabile primary sources, one is his own website. My simple question is who awarded him the PhD and where is it mentioned? - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The9Man, i am not talking about these four references. I am talking about the references that i mentioned in my my above comment. If you are not agree any of those references. Please explain why? And for your information you must be aware that Phd degree is awarded by a recognised university not an individual. And Dr. Prem Kumar sharma done his Phd from Medicina Alternativa Institute Europe and affiliated T. I found this information from his website. and no-one can't add wrong information on his official website.NeotanPix (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through each and every reference you have mentioned in the first comment. Those are the coulums he writes on the websites or passing mentions. Please share if you have secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I suggest you to go through WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO to understand the requirements of BLP better.
And when I asked 'who' I meant which university only. I am sorry if it wasn't clear for you.
Since you have revealed the university which has given him the 'PhD', here are few references you might be interested to look at.

^[1]^[2]^[3]

And I don't understand what made you believe that no one will put the wrong information on their own website, anyone can add misleading information on the website for their own gains. Please see WP:SELFPUBLISH. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.skepdic.com/diplomamill.html
^ http://burmesewithfakephds.blogspot.com/2011/11/phd-alternativa-medicina-medicina.html
^ https://degrees4sale.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/asian-degree-mills-since-1960s/

http://www.skepdic.com/diplomamill.html http://burmesewithfakephds.blogspot.com/2011/11/phd-alternativa-medicina-medicina.html https://degrees4sale.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/asian-degree-mills-since-1960s/

My friend The9man, The above resources you provided are not on trusted websites. These are free blogs anyone can create easily to publish their views for down anyone's image. But the institute is not a fake it is affiliated with The Open International University for Complementory Medicines. And you still not checked all the references which i shared in my very first comment, which are independent and reliable. If you are not agree with any of the mentioned resource you may give a valid reason why it is not acceptable? You are still unable to answer for all of the resources that i mentioned.

As you questioned the Phd degree is fake, you may refer the [website url] where the pictures are available for PhD degree and convocation of receiving degree by Prem Kumar. And pictures can't be fake.NeotanPix (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the Ph.D. is fake, but surely this is not a notable or reputable university in the world. I shared the links to have a look at the public opinions.
Btw, why do you think I didn't go through the references you have already shared? How about sharing a few secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject and close this argument?

Your desperate attempts leans to more of WP:COIEDIT or WP:PAY and less of WP:GOODFAITH. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unremarkable promotionalism. The few sources that aren't obviously primary are churned press releases or websites saying that astrologers can help with "important life decisions", making them ipso facto unreliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XOR'easter, you stated that article is unremarkable promotionalism. Can you please explain where it has promotional tone. And did you go through from all the sources. I would suggest you please check these again as all the sources are on trusted websites and independent reilable. If you are not agree with any source please explain why that reference is not fit for the article.NeotanPix (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pseudoscientists and charlatans can be notable and deserving of articles (eg Uri Geller or Joan Quigley). The issue is whether this subject is notable and meets GNG/BASIC, not the nature of his claimed achievements (which can never be verified) or the current status of the article. It is important not to conflate content with subject. That said, there seems to be very little in the way of independent reliable sources to verify notability. The only secondary source RS piece of information I can find is that he is the "resident astrologer" at the Hindustan Times, which is not a notable position. The claimed higher degree qualification looks to be from an institution with, at best, a very questionable reputation. This person's work appears in a number of newspapers in India, but all the mentions of him are at best trivial. There just does not seem to be enough that crosses the threshold of independent, reliable sourcing to justify an article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and is almost certainly promotional, which regardless of tone was likely trying to boost the subject's online presence. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NeotanPix Are you so fucking desperate to keep this article that you completely altered my vote from delete to keep? Altering another editor's vote is a serious breach of conduct. GPL93 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, Added new references to justify the notability and removed promotional content. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]--NeotanPix (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Analysis of new sources:


	Comment	Reliable	Significant
https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/astro/astrologers-live/astrojyotish.cms	List of astrologers in a newspaper	Yes	No
https://www.bharattimes.com/fortnight-forecast-astrology/	Column by subject	Possibly	No
https://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110119/ttlife1.htm	Trivial quote from 2011	Yes	No
AMERICAN PSYCHIC & MEDIUM MAGAZINE. (Economy Edition) January 2015	Name mentioned in an advertisement	No	No
Politicians flock to astrologers as planets get into rare ‘clash’ (Hindustan Times)	Quoted in story, two paragraps	Yes	No
2015-2016 World' s Best, Most Trusted And Most Popular Lightworkers	Directory listing	No	No
Know what the stars foretell for you (India Today)	Trivial single sentence mention	Yes	No
Narendra Modi an unstoppable force, say astrologers (DNA)	Trivial single sentence mention	Possibly	No

I would also argue that any source which uncritically refers to the subject as a "Dr" should be treated as unreliable in this case (although I have not applied that rule to the table above). --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New references, i just found few new resources these must be reliable and significant and for other note Prem Kumar Sharma is an old and existing in Indian astrology. He forecast many notable personalities at national and international level.

[48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

News Channels [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeotanPix (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UpGrad[edit]

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

The article has been written as WP:PROMO and fails to comply with WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commment, I was under the impression that AfDs are for the purpose of deleting aritcles that lack notability. Neither WP:PROMO or WP:NPOV problems meet that standard. Have you at least also looked through the citations to see if the company is notable or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the refbombing in the article, the sources presented are all either not independent, not significant, or not reliable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:56, 25 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 08:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Ojha[edit]

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

I don't see sources that add up to WP:GNG, and it's not clear that WP:NACTOR is met either. There's a bunch of trivial coverage from the Times of India, which isn't a great source. Claims of being a "cricketer" in the opening statement are overstating the subject's involvement in a film-industry amateur cricket league. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources aren't notable, the subject dosent seem to meet WP:NACTOR since most of the films are not notable. Antila333 (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- article fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The provided references only mention this person without any in-depth coverage. Claim of "Cricketer" is without merit -- this term is reserved for WP:NSPORTS professionals, not hobbyists. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Following the recent consensus that Times of India is no longer considered a prima facie reliable source, I agree that the article struggles to meet WP:GNG. As for WP:NACTOR, though, it's a bit difficult to determine the notability of productions the subject has been involved with, so I'll happily update my vote if others have any thoughts on that. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are a number of sources which mention him, but I cannot see enough substantive coverage. Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:35, 24 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 04:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Edwards[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:GNG and WP:BLP, possibly unreliable as well, revolves around a single news story. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 02:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. dibbydib Ping me!^💬/_✏ 02:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Textbook WP:BLP1E. Made the news once, low profile outside of the incident, and not a significant incident. Hog Farm (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am going to see if there I can locate RS for the Democracy Manifest Guy. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was renamed Democracy Manifest video. I think we have WP:BARE for a notable video. I will keep working on this. @Hog Farm: I will appreciate your opinion of the name change and article improvement if you have a chance. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly there is enough coverage ( 2016 example, 2019 example, another 2019 example, the Guardian mentions it in 2019, 2020 example, in additon to 1990, presumably) over time to establish the notability of this totally dumb article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources has now been found to establish notability. Dream Focus 03:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the focus of the newly-written article on the video, this seems to just barely indicate lasting coverage. I still hold that any article about Mr. Edwards would be a notability failure. Hog Farm (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the all-time great viral specimens, and not overly dangerous to encounter, unless you are a succulent Chinese meal. As supported by The Guardian and elsewhere. Significant and lasting coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- GreenC 04:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Snow Keep Meets WP:GNG. The subject is ~~despicable~~ ~~opprobrious~~ after all these years, amusing; the video is notable; but WP:I don't like it is no ground to delete. May not even be showing a real arrest, per the sources. But the video is an Australian meme. Article has been renamed, moved, repurposed; its subject matter turned 180 degrees; and vastly improved (and now better cited) since its nomination with multiple WP:RS. Not the article it was at the time of the nomination. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY example. Expanded and improved article now clearly shows the subject passes WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 01:23, 23 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 delete G5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Tirdad[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Likely a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. All references are copies of the same press release in different unreliable sources. GPL93 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He appears to still be alive so WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't count. Regardless, all I can find are some basic promotional announcements of his existence in a few online magazines, and that includes sources in his home country. The true issue here is WP:PROMOTION because this article accomplishes nothing beyond those basic music biz introductions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NOTMEMORIAL was based off the earlier versions of the article, but it could just be the article was initially formatted off someone who passed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I wonder if a false death announcement was from someone who wanted to hurt his career, or someone who wanted to drum up publicity. Or maybe it was all a bizarre mistake. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

doomsdayer520 I think it's a script as the article's creator also accidentally offed the subject in another article of a completely NN person, Sepehr Salehi, although there is a different date of death for both. What's interesting is that both feature different press releases with the same contact person at the bottom so this is likely the work of a UPE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:14, 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 Science Ninja Team Gatchaman. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galactor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails to establish notability. No real world information is present. TTN (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Science Ninja Team Gatchaman, where they are already largely covered in the plot section of the article. None of the current sources are reliable, secondary sources, and searches do not bring up anything that really goes beyond plot summary. But, as a reasonable target exists, Redirecting there would be a good idea. Rorshacma (talk) 14:54, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Safronov[edit]

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

Contested BLPProd Person has no proof of notability. Has been quoted a few times but no one has taken the time to write about him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Safronov served as Minister of Trade, Investment and Enterprise in Yakutia, largest indigenous republic located in Arctic Russia." Cabinet ministers are usually considered notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello McMatter. Having been a cabinet minister in Russia's largest indigenous territory signifies notability. Therefore I would like to suggest we keep the person's article in Wikipedia. There is quite a bit written on him in Russian language. Personal82 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly meets WP:NPOL as served a cabinet minister of region.117.18.231.97 (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notability meets WP:SPORTSPERSON as champion of Siberia and Russia's Far East in freestyle wrestling. Added source on this. Personal82 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as it has been created by WP:UPE violating WP:ToU. Even if the notability is met then it still needs a cleanup to get rid of paid edits so IMO WP:AFC would be the best place. KartikeyaS (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this showed up at AfC it would be rejected. The job of AfC is not to certify the works of undeclared paid editors, but to remove them. If any established good faith editor cares to rewrite it from scratch there's no need to go to AfC. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for violating ToU and unambiguous promotion. Should have been WP:G11 speedy delete. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 26 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 08:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Pearson (YouTube personality)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Subject is not widely known by name, just for appearing in an internet meme. The meme itself is the topic in which this person should be mentioned. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete if the nominator's reasons aren't enough, I'm going with ignore all rules and that any rule standing in the way of deletion of this article should be ignored because deletion will make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no notability or achievements in any respective field. A Wikipedia article for releasing a viral video on Youtube? Must be kidding me. - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3 as I'm pretty sure this is a hoax article: none of the external links work, nor can I find any evidence of them on the internet, nor of the video that was supposedly famous. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete YorkshireLad may indeed be correct that this is WP:HOAX. I looked at this subject last night and again this AM. The subject does not pass WP:N or WP:V. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 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.

[1] ttp://www.skepdic.com/diplomamill.html

[2] ttp://burmesewithfakephds.blogspot.com/2011/11/phd-alternativa-medicina-medicina.html

[3] ttps://degrees4sale.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/asian-degree-mills-since-1960s/

[1]

[2]

[3]