Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 March 21 March >

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe[edit]

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

This biography article should be deleted because it does not meet any of Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --2604:2000:E010:1100:41F:9F06:5896:638 (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She's a lecturer. Known most for as you point out the one event of a failed candidacy-which is largely covered in passing mentions with the other 8 candidates. I was under the impression that interviews such as the one you point to are irrelevant here. And it is harder to find a briefer passing mention than the one in The St. Lucia Star that you point to (blink and you will miss it) - that can't be what makes her notable. The same with this barest-of-all-possible-mentions that you would have us focus on - one could not have a briefer mention. And that French award you rely on, the National Order of Merit? There are 300,000 people who have received it or been promoted in the past 50 years, 185,000 who are now members - that certainly does not make someone notable. And one of the L'Orient pieces is a short 3-paragraph article; she doesn't meet GNG, and she does indeed as David mentions have a WP:BIO1E issue as most coverage is of her failed candidacy. The fact that the best case for the notability of this lecturer is built on those mentions is a sign of just how flimsy the case for notability is here. 2604:2000:E010:1100:EDB7:BE53:2AC8:FEF3 (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a position as a lecturer (if she still has that position; I can't verify it) is not a rationale for deletion. It is not notable in itself, of course, but it does not cast any negative light on anything else. And you appear not to have read my comment very carefully; there is plenty of nontrivial coverage; the parts that you point to as brief passing mentions were not about depth of coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Much more than a lecturer, a former diplomat and many senior roles at UNESCO, there is enough coverage for WP:GNG however the ip (who asked for the nomination and just commented) paints it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like Atlantic306 said, she is a diplomat and higher-up roles at UNESCO. A quick Google News search reveals a number of articles about her. = paul2520 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As a former diplomat and for her role in UNESCO she is notable. Alex-h (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily meets GNG by way of SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yousha Liu[edit]

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

Clearly self-promotion by creator IW. (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS, two only references are WP:PRIMARY, suspected to be self-promotion, I am unable to justify it as WP:N. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rattlers (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Noonan, Bonnie (2015). Gender in Science Fiction Films, 1964-1979: A Critical Study. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 140–141. ISBN 978-0-7864-5974-2. Retrieved 2020-03-24.
    2. Thomas, Kevin (1976-09-23). "Desert Horror in 'Rattlers'". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.
    3. Keaton, Bob (1976-02-10). "'Rattlers' Bites Wallet". Fort Lauderdale News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.
    4. Oren, Allen (1976-03-17). "Beware of 'Rattlers,' It's A Shoddy Movie". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.
    5. "Snake Thriller On Screen". Seguin Gazette. 1976-01-29. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.
    6. "Sam Chow is snake expert in "Rattlers"". Eunice News. 1976-08-17. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Noonan, Bonnie (2015). Gender in Science Fiction Films, 1964-1979: A Critical Study. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 140–141. ISBN 978-0-7864-5974-2. Retrieved 2020-03-24.

      The book notes:

      Not nearly as gruesome is outlier Rattlers (1976), though the film does begin with an opening sequence of two angelic young boys being bitten to death by crazed rattlesnakes. Rattlers also nods to the trope of the woman in science—this time, following the Fifties lead of Audrey Aimes in Beginning of the End and Marge Blaine in The Deadly Mantis, a photographer. Of course the film's male lead, herpetologist Dr. Tom Parkinson, is outraged that his partner on the dangerous expedition into the Mojave Desert is going to be a female. The town sheriff both complains about her ("Every damn women's lib group is on our backs about job equality") and defends her ("Look, she spent two years in Vietnam as a press photographer, and she'll be able to handle herself, okay?"), thus satisfying everyone (or no one). Rattlers does not add anything new to the sub-genre of the creature film. The snakes are subdued, the herpetologist and the photographer make love, and the corrupt general who illegally disposed of the nerve gas that caused the snakes to mutate is appropriately punished. Rattlers is not even listed in Variety's Complete Science Fiction Reviews.

    2. Thomas, Kevin (1976-09-23). "Desert Horror in 'Rattlers'". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes:

      To their credit producer-director John McCauley and writer Jerry Golding, who are reportedly making their feature debuts, avoid completely the lurid grisliness that characterizes the animal horror genre. If anything, "Rattlers" is a little too low-key for its own good. However, McCauley and Golding wisely go for naturalness both in performances and dialogue. In this film they demonstrate that they know how to establish a plausible premise; next time out they should concentrate on picking up pace and building suspense in a more taut fashion.

      With considerable experience in TV, Chew is a poised, capable actor who has what it takes for more important assignments. Miss Chauvet is adequate for the circumstances. Dan Priest has some good scenes as a gung-ho colonel and so does Ron Gold as a boozy Army medical officer. Celia Kaye, playing an unhappy divorcee with small children, is seen all too briefly as one of the snakes' victims. All other credits are competent.

    3. Keaton, Bob (1976-02-10). "'Rattlers' Bites Wallet". Fort Lauderdale News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      But beyond the subject matter, "Rattlers is a horror picture that's a pretty horrible production. It bites us where it hurts most, in our wallets, without giving us our money's worth.

      "Rattlers" is amateurishly scripted, directed and acted. Actually Jerry Golding had a feasible idea for a story. Too bad it's so sketchily developed.

      ...

      The dialogue and acting are often unintentionally funny, as when a corporal, called before the general, is reprimanded for talking about the nerve gas. "I promise I won't do it again," he says, looking like a little boy scolded for eating candy before dinner.

    4. Oren, Allen (1976-03-17). "Beware of 'Rattlers,' It's A Shoddy Movie". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes:

      If "Breakfast Pass" is a grade B "Orient Express," "Rattlers" is no better than a grade D "Jaws."

      Again, a common premise treated with uncommon awkwardness.

      It's snakes, not sharks, that terrorize in "Rattlers," first striking the unexpectant, then those warned, but regretfully careless. As in "Jaws," an academic expert is finally summoned; expert arrives, crisis departs.

      Not before we should, though. This is an amalgam of shoddy acting in the services of shoddy script, under direction that favors the ill-lit, ill-composed, and finally the indecent, with snakes slivering beneath pants legs, and then through bathtub drains to bathers.

      It seems to be re-debubbed very often, and cut as if re-takes had been added later.

    5. "Snake Thriller On Screen". Seguin Gazette. 1976-01-29. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes:

      "Rattler" is a thriller from first scene to last. It opens Jan. 28 at the Palace Theatre.

      ...

      Dan Priest portrays the secretive Colonel, Tony Ballen is the county sheriff, and Ron Gold puts in a fine performance as Delaney. As director of photography, Irv Goodnoff did an excellent job bringing to the screen the impressive reality of dozens of rattlesnakes on the warpath. The viewer is spellbound as what could be a real story unfolds with suspenseful force.

    6. "Sam Chow is snake expert in "Rattlers"". Eunice News. 1976-08-17. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      As a snake expert in "Rattlers," Sam gives an impressive performance by which he convinces the viewer that the events portrayed in the film really could happen today. Joining Sam in this realistic thriller are Elizabeth Chauvet, Dan Priest, Ron Gold, and Tony Ballen. Produced and directed by John McCauley, the film is released by Boxoffice International Pictures.

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sources mentioned above indicate not only coverage in LA Times, an authoritative source for film and entertainment, but a wide release. There was coverage of its making in Variety and other Hollywood press according to AFI catalog.[1]. In recent years it has academic coverage and more popular interest thanks to Cinematic Titanic. It features in books such as Brute Force: Animal Horror Movies By Dominic Lennard (SUNY Press) and Francesco Borseti's It Came from the 80s (McFarland). IMDb lists 30 online reviews[2] a lot not meeting notability/reliability requirements, but that's a lot of reviews and again indication of some notability. Not The Deer Hunter but enough material for an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:15, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Livestock Science and Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALS. As far as I can tell, this is a predatory journal, effectively cited nowhere. It lists fake impact factors (CiteFactor), advertises basic things like ISSN Portal (which is just saying you have an ISSN) as a citation service, claims to be in Scopus, but isn't. The list goes on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 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 keep. I'm mystified by the whole sockpuppet thing. Why would somebody create a sock to nominate their own article for deletion? I can only assume random vandalism, and am thus inclined to completely ignore the nom's arguments. If somebody still feels this should be deleted, feel free to start a new discussion unfettered by the sock sillyness. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids[edit]

The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, as it does not cite any third-party sources Yaxollum (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking AfD nomination. The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet of the article's creator. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids is a compilation of three previously published books: Hockey Trivia for Kids, Hockey Trivia for Kids 2, and Hockey Trivia for Kids 3: Stanley Cup Edition. Here are three reviews about the compilation itself, followed by reviews of each of the three previously published books that make up the compilation:
    1. Reviews for The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids:
      1. Pennell, Victoria (April 2016). "The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids". Resource Links. 21 (4). Society for Canadian Educational Resources: 3.
      2. Jenkinson, Dave (2016-04-01). "The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids". Canadian Review of Materials. 22 (29). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.

        Dave Jenkinson is the Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Education at the University of Manitoba.

      3. "The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids". Best Books for Kids & Teens. Canadian Children's Book Centre: 44. 2016-03-01.
    2. Reviews for Hockey Trivia for Kids:
      1. Dodwell-Groves, Laura (2007-02-02). "Hockey Trivia for Kids". Canadian Review of Materials. 13 (12). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
      2. Hatcher, Anne (2006-12-01). "Hockey Trivia for Kids". Resource Links. 12 (2). Society for Canadian Educational Resources: 28–29.
      3. Challen, Paul (2007-01-09). "Hockey Trivia for Kids". Quill & Quire. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
    3. Reviews for Hockey Trivia for Kids 2:
      1. Jenkinson, Dave (2008-10-10). "Hockey Trivia for Kids 2". Canadian Review of Materials. 15 (4). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
      2. Wilson, Eva (2008-12-01). "Hockey Trivia for Kids 2". Resource Links. 14 (2). Society for Canadian Educational Resources: 29.
    4. Reviews for Hockey Trivia for Kids 3: Stanley Cup Edition
      1. Jenkinson, Dave (2012-01-27). "Hockey Trivia for Kids 3: Stanley Cup Edition". Canadian Review of Materials. 18 (20). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
      2. Malespin, Ana (2011-12-01). "Hockey Trivia for Kids 3: Stanley Cup Edition". Resource Links. 17 (2). Society for Canadian Educational Resources: 30.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Reviews for The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids:
      1. Pennell, Victoria (April 2016). "The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids". Resource Links. 21 (4). Society for Canadian Educational Resources: 3.

        The review notes:

        This book combines three previously published books of hockey trivia by Eric Zweig - Hockey Trivia for Kids, Hockey Trivia for Kids 2, and Hockey Trivia for Kids 3 - all of which have been reviewed in Resource Links. Now we have all that trivia contained in 375 pages in one volume. Using large bold headings and short text articles, interspersed with photographs and illustrations, Zweig brings us all kinds of trivia about hockey in North America from the early days up to the present. “Did you Know” boxes add more trivia, “By the Numbers” boxes gives all kinds of statistical information, and “Name Game” sweaters give the origins of the names of the NHL teams. There is no table of contents or index in this book, thus making it a little difficult if looking for specific information, however, most readers will enjoy it for the trivia aspect rather than as a reference tool.

        This book is sure to be a hit with all hockey fans, not just kids. I doubt that it will spend much time on a shelf so multiple copies might be advised for school and public libraries. It will also be a good personal choice for hockey enthusiasts.

      2. Jenkinson, Dave (2016-04-01). "The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids". Canadian Review of Materials. 22 (29). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.

        Dave Jenkinson is the Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Education at the University of Manitoba.

        The review notes:

        While The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids is a “new” book, its contents are not “new”. Instead, Zweig’s most recent offering is a compilation of three earlier books he produced: Hockey Trivia for Kids, Hockey Trivia for Kids 2, and Hockey Trivia for Kids 3: Stanley Cup Edition. Because most of the trivia Zweig has assembled is about hockey happenings in the past, the contents of this “new” book have “aged” well.

        Libraries who don’t own the original three books will definitely want to add The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids to their collections. The volume would also make a terrific purchase by hockey aficionados, whether child or adult.

      3. "The Ultimate Book of Hockey Trivia for Kids". Best Books for Kids & Teens. Canadian Children's Book Centre: 44. 2016-03-01.

        The review notes:

        This giant collection of hockey trivia is full of all the fun and fascinating facts every ultimate hockey fan needs to know! What’s the story behind some of hockey’s most famous names? And just what kind of shenanigans does the Cup get into? A compilation of Hockey Trivia for Kids, Hockey Trivia for Kids 2, Hockey Trivia for Kids 3: The Stanley Cup Edition and On This Day in Hockey.

    2. Reviews for Hockey Trivia for Kids:
      1. Dodwell-Groves, Laura (2007-02-02). "Hockey Trivia for Kids". Canadian Review of Materials. 13 (12). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.

        The review notes:

        This book has a varied and interesting collection of facts. It is clearly written and well laid out with a diverse array of pictures and illustrations. The illustrations (by Scholastic) are amusing, even if slightly generic.

        ...

        Hockey Trivia for Kids will appeal to a wide audience, from the ‘I like hockey and know nothing about it’ to the ‘I like hockey and already know many things about it but want to know more.’ It informs without condescension. The keenest hockey trivia buff will doubtless outgrow this compendium quite quickly, but it is certainly a good place to start.

      2. Hatcher, Anne (2006-12-01). "Hockey Trivia for Kids". Resource Links. 12 (2). Society for Canadian Educational Resources: 28–29.

        The review notes:

        Young hockey enthusiasts will delight in this fact-filled trivia book about Canada's favourite pastime. Each page is ruled with information opening the reader's eyes to the degree hockey has permeated the Canadian psyche and culture. Eric Zweig begins the text sharing his love of the game and how it has shaped his reading life. He then demonstrates how others must concur with his opinion by detailing the hockey trivia contained on our 'multi-coloured' five dollar bill.

        Trivia readers will love reading the history of Lord Stanley's Cup and the interesting situations the cup has found itself in throughout the years. They will gain answers as to: Why are octopi thrown onto the ice at Red Wing games? How many pucks does it take to get through a National Hockey League Game? Which goalie was really the first to wear a mask? These and many other hockey statistics and capers are depicted in a 'did you know' format.

        Black and white pencil sketches and photos are also included further expanding the rich history of hockey. In additional, the large headlines and charts help to present the information in an easy to read format that early and/or challenged readers would find manageable. This book would make a great addition to a school and/or classroom library.

      3. Challen, Paul (2007-01-09). "Hockey Trivia for Kids". Quill & Quire. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.

        The review notes:

        Hockey Trivia for Kids, on the other hand, contains none of the flash and flair of Hockey Superstars. What it does contain is page after page of fascinating trivia for the true hockey geek (and remember, in Canada, that term is not taken as an insult by a sizable number of young fans.)

        Hockey historian Eric Zweig has clearly put a great deal of time into mining such sources as Toronto’s Hockey Hall of Fame. He has come up with the perfect blend of factoids everybody should know (Bill Barilko’s death and the discovery of his remains, Mike Bossy’s 50-goals-in-50-games season) as well as downright bizarre, I-never-knew-that tales such as the one about the players who killed a rat in the dressing room and the time Guy Lafleur swiped the Stanley Cup and took it to his parents’ house.

        Although it is billed as a trivia title, this is not a question-and-answer book, but rather a collection of Zweig’s many fascinating snippets, most of them accompanied by funny black-and-white illustrations or photos. While this presentation makes Hockey Trivia for Kids as different from Hockey Superstars as it can be, it will be no less successful in holding the interest of the thousands of young fans who love pro hockey.

    3. Reviews for Hockey Trivia for Kids 2:
      1. Jenkinson, Dave (2008-10-10). "Hockey Trivia for Kids 2". Canadian Review of Materials. 15 (4). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.

        The review notes:

        Two years have elapsed since sports writer Zweig produced his first collection of hockey facts, Hockey Trivia for Kids. See: CM, Vol. 13, No. 12, February 2, 2007. His second volume provides more of this “useless” information that young hockey afficionados love to trot out to demonstrate their hockey knowledge. While the word “hockey” in the title should be understood to largely mean the male-dominated National Hockey League, Zweig does include four entries that address women’s contributions to the sport. Zweig largely avoids retelling already well-known bits of hockey history and lore. The entries represent both the contemporary and historical NHL.

        Although Hockey Trivia for Kids 2 has no discernable organizational structure, four headings do reappear numerous times throughout the book: “Did You Know?”; “Cup Chronicles”; “By the Numbers”; and “Name Game.”

      2. Wilson, Eva (2008-12-01). "Hockey Trivia for Kids 2". Resource Links. 14 (2). Society for Canadian Educational Resources: 29.

        The review notes:

        Fun and interesting facts about HOCKEY that will fulfill any young persons’ desire for more hockey trivia. Lacking a table of contents or index this is meant to be what the title indicates - trivia, sure to satisfy hockey fans.

        Also available in French. See p. 52.

    4. Reviews for Hockey Trivia for Kids 3: Stanley Cup Edition:
      1. Jenkinson, Dave (2012-01-27). "Hockey Trivia for Kids 3: Stanley Cup Edition". Canadian Review of Materials. 18 (20). Manitoba Library Association. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.

        The review notes:

        Don’t let the “For Kids” portion of the title fool you. “Big” kids, aka adults, will also enjoy the third iteration of Eric Zweig’s Hockey Trivia for Kids, with the first two volumes having appeared in 2006 (CM, Vol. XIII, No. 12, February 2, 2007) and 2008 (CM, Vol. XV, No. 4, October 10, 2008). What differentiates this third volume from the previous two is that it focuses entirely on facts, trivia and anecdotes that relate to the Stanley Cup, professional hockey’s ultimate prize and the oldest trophy competed for by professional athletes in North America. Donated in 1892 by Frederick Arthur Stanley, aka Lord Stanley of Preston, who was the Governor General of Canada from 1888-1893, the Cup became permanently associated with the National Hockey League in 1927.

        ...

        Sure to be popular with hockey fans of all ages and reading abilities, the Stanley Cup Edition of Hockey Trivia for Kids 3 is a good library and individual purchase.

      2. Malespin, Ana (2011-12-01). "Hockey Trivia for Kids 3: Stanley Cup Edition". Resource Links. 17 (2). Society for Canadian Educational Resources: 30.

        The review notes:

        Eric Zweig’s Hockey Trivia for Kids 3 of-fers young readers insight into the adventurous life of the coveted Stanley Cup. Zweig includes an historical overview of the Stanley Cup and not only describes the Stanley Cups’ origin and “growing pains” as a result of numerous names being added to its bands; but also offers readers a glimpse of how the cup has travelled throughout the world. The Stanley Cup was even used as a dish for various foods including popcorn, ice cream, cake and perogies!

        Throughout the book the Cup’s status as the ultimate hockey prize is demonstrated in detailed descriptions of hockey traditions and player anecdotes. Photographs add historical value to the text, while Bill Dickson’s illustrations serve as delightful caricatures of hockey players and celebrities.

        Headings mark the beginning of each trivia or anecdote while sections such as “By the numbers” and “Did you know?” provide additional factual information. As this book offers text in both short and long passages it is an ideal book for reluctant readers or group activities.

        Also available in French. See p. 54.

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added these sources to the article which I've expanded. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging the article's creator: Peterye2005 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Nowhere near WP:N. Listing in catalogues isn't anything like what we need for secondary coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some of these reviews are kind of sketchy, saying little more than that this book is an amalgamation from other books, but some of the reviews are substantive so the subject seems to meet the notability criteria for books. Rlendog (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BOOKCRIT item #1 is a very low bar, and this passes it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:09, 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 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 03:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Startup Initiative Program[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of wiki new article curation / review process. No wp:GNG suitable coverage. Wording appears copied from PR materials. This is a program of a company, and the article for the company has been deleted. Also of concern that the editor is obviously wiki-experienced but has only about 30 lifetime edits under this username. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 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) 20:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eilean Mo Chridhe[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Coverage is passing mentions only and reproduction of the song (WP:PRIMARY). Fails GNG and WP:NSONGS. buidhe 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. buidhe 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. buidhe 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. buidhe 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. buidhe 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You can find songbooks that list it but nothing that would support an article about the song. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A Google search of the song doesn't show it being discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the many songs of that time. Not notable. desmay (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am seeing nothing to suggest the song is notable enough to have its own article. Dunarc (talk) 21:51, 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) 20:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Godwin[edit]

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

References all seem to be blogs. Rathfelder (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wexit Canada[edit]

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

Not a registered federal or provincial political party. Not notable either. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:51, 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 speedy keep. SKCRIT#1: no valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discogobio dienbieni[edit]

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

Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia Elijahandskip (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 16:59, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hughs[edit]

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

No evidence could be found that Hughs meets WP:BIO. No reliable independent sources give him serious attention apparently. Fram (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject fails WP:GNG and sources like this aren't independent of the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete College football coaches are not inherently notable. Especially when they run so few games. I hate to see the deletion of articles like this at one level because it adds even more to Wikipedia's presentism, but there is no sign of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Link rot is not a reason to delete an article, and saying a source not used in the article isn't good enough is a classic straw man argument and should not be used. Head college football coaches are typically kept. In 1901, Doane College competed at the highest level of the sport (college) as there were no classifications and no professional football. See essay at WP:CFBCOACH for more reasoning.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking of fallacies: linkrot is not given as a reason to delete this article, and "keep because these are normally kept" is circular reasoning. "The highest level of the sport" is not a reason to keep an article either if there is no real top level competition, just some individual, regional games. Fram (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stating that no independent reliable sources cover the subject when indeed they did but they are archived internet files could be considered link rot. It's a pre-emptive argument. Circular reasoning would be "keep this because it should be kept" and not "keep this because others like it are normally kept" because the second one is a comparative argument. And "highest level" is specifically named as a criteria in WP:SPORTBASIC.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, quoting WP:OUTCOMES is circular because appealing to past decisions as the logic for present decisions only re-ifies the logic of past decisions because they happened, not because they were good or right. Honestly, I struggle with anyone holding a mop that can't live with the fact that consensus changes. Link rot was never advanced as a rationale; it's a strawman you introduced to shift the goal posts (ha!) because your argument is actually WP:ILIKEIT. Your CFBCOACH essay isn't widely regarded, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec)Please reread SPORTBASIC: it only discussed international competitions at the highest level (meaning that even international competitions below that level are not included, never mind natioanal ones, never mind even more regional ones like here: " a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). ". Fram (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read the entire section of WP:SPORTBASIC which includes the words "for example" right before the section that was quoted above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I have read it. Please explain how the sentence in the example which uses term "highest level", and is clearly NOT applicable here, somehow magically can be used as justification anyway? Fram (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Simple: the phrase "for example" uses the Olympics as the highest level. Today, there are no gridiron football games in the Olympics (and only occasionally as an exhibition sport) but that doesn't exclude any occurrence of the sport in articles on Wikipedia. That's because it's an example. An example is not a hard-and-fast rule. An example requires interpretation. Because of that, sometimes people disagree on the meaning. When that happens in AFD, each side states their case and after time a third party evaluates the case and closes the issue to the best of their ability. AFD doesn't require you to convince me or me to convince you: we discuss and express our views to then surrender the decision to someone else. I think that pretty much covers it, so I'll step back and leave my points where they are.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Simple: you're grasping at straws here. It's an example of an international competition at the highest level, you are extracting "highest level" and ignoring the parts that don't fit your narrative completely. "Disagreeing on the meaning" dosn't equate "ignoring what's written". The minimal requirement to be accepted as "the highest level" in sportbasic is that it is an international competition, you can't use that line but ignore that qualifier. Fram (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I guess this is another point where we disagree. I believe that "for example" means "a sample or similar case" and you seem to be stating that "for example" means "requirement" - is that right? I leave it to the closer to interpret how strict that particular guideline should be applied.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, where we disagree is that you can't a line given as a "for example", and then extract one bit from that line which supports your position, while ignoring the remainder of the very same example. You literally used this as an argument to support keeping "And "highest level" is specifically named as a criteria in WP:SPORTBASIC." Which is either disingeneous, or a very poor reading of the line where that comes from. "Highest level in a major international competition" is what is "specifically named", as an example. There may be others that apply, as it is given as an example, but those others are then not specifically named. You are trying to have your cake and it, which is yet another fallacy. Fram (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Either way, I leave that final determination to the closer and its potential bearing on the outcome of this AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My searches turned up nothing, but then I tried searching with "Hughes" as the spelling and do get some hits. I ask that this not be closed yet, to allow time for further research given that the article appears to have been created with an erroneous spelling. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Actually, I'm not finding more than passing reference of "Hughes" being the coach. Sorry I wasn't able to be more help on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cbl62, I don't always agree with you with what constitutes significant or sufficient coverage and so on, but thank you for the rather thorough searches you do and the sources you find. Fram (talk) 08:26, 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. – bradv🍁 01:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. L. Mains[edit]

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

No evidence that he meets WP:BIO could be found. The information from the non-reliable sources findagrave and rootsweb contradicts each other (perhaps that's why these are not relaible and shouldn't be used?) Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy This article doesn't make a claim of notability. With sources like this, this, and this you could write a passable stub. As an immediatist, I don't support retaining this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: At your suggestion, I've now rewritten this to the point where it is now at least a "passable stub" supported by reliable sources. Will you now consider changing to "keep"? Cbl62 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I don't think WP:HEY has been met. As the discussion has turned to an essay, I'm not inclined to change my position. I'll let the consensus determine if the sources I gave you are enough for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notion advanced by some that every "head" football coach at every college ever is notable is just ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mains qualifies under WP:CFBCOACH, and I added several sources which are sufficient to demonstrate that he also passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Cbl62 (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per the sources from Cbl62. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CFBCOACH is an essay, not an accepted guideline, and with good reason. As for the sources: rootsweb is not a reliable source (just like findagrave), this shows notability for the team, not really for Mains or others mentioned in it, this gives a 404 error, this is typical routine local coverage. Which leaves us only with the two local obituaries, which at least talk about his sporting career (unlike what is the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F. W. Sweeney), but are not really sufficient in my view. Fram (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good sources, typical outcome for college football head coaches is to keep the article. WP:ROUTINE applies to events and not people. WP:LINKROT is not a reason to delete. The WP:CFBCOACH essay is widely used, referenced, and linked in discussions--one of the standards in Wikipedia:The value of essays. It's been found useful for a number of reasons, including as a place where discussions are refined and improved over time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paulmcdonald, as an admin, it would be better if you didn't constantly misuse essays and guidelines in your effort to keep these articles.
      • No one mentioned LINKROT, so that's a strawman
      • No one mentioned WP:ROUTINE: what we do have though, is your constantly misapplied WP:SPORTBASIC, which actually explicitly contradicts you:
        • "Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage."
      • CFBCoach is always used by the same few people trying to avoid having to show that the subjects meet the GNG, and is a last resort when nothing else works. It is not a convincing argument to use to keep an article, as it is circular reasoning. The same goes for your mantra of "typical outcome".
    • Please stick to policies and guidelines, and even more importantly don't misrepresent either these or the opinions of others (when you use them as strawman arguments). Fram (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Fram, you used the phrase "typical routine local coverage" above in one of your comments so I responded. As to the rest of this "dance" going on, I don't dance and leave the evaluation of disagreements up to the closing admin. The fact that I'm a Wikipedia admin myself has no bearing on this AFD (I'm simply participating as an interested editor) and I'm unsure why that's mentioned.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being an admin requires (to my mind) successful use of our policies, guidelines, and essays. While a !vote at AfD doesn't involve the use of tools, any admin who points to WP:OUTCOMES both suffers a cognitive bias and lacks clue. Even your obvious dishonesty about linkrot is unbecoming an admin but sadly not punishable. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: You've overstepped in your edit summary calling Paul "clueless" (dictionary definition: "having no knowledge, understanding, or ability"). We can have differing views on the notability of S.L. Mains, but the personal attacks are wholly unnecessary. Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: It used to be that admins read stuff like WP:CLUE, which talks about use of reasoning rather than use of rhetoric. A professional critique is not a personal attack, even if they both hurt your feelings. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: Not an issue with my feelings. Just trying to keep things civil, and your comments crossed the line. The simple gist of WP:PA is as follows: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. . . . Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Calling someone "clueless" (i.e. "having no knowledge, understanding, or ability") is a derogatory comment not on the content, but on the contributor. This should be avoided. Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI--WP:CLUE and WP:HEY and User:Chris troutman/My RfA criteria are also all essays.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI also -- per WP:LINKROT, one editor mentioned a source "gives a 404 error" so I responded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI also -- I cannot find any link I made to WP:OUTCOMES. I did use the phrase "typical outcome" when referring to WP:CFBCOACH which contains a Head coach notability discussion library with a number of related AFDs so readers can review what is a "typical outcome" of an AFD on a college football head coach. It's useful information and germane to this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI also --- (and hopefully finally) I didn't reference WP:SPORTBASIC in this discussion either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The closing admin need not resolve the broader debate presented here between Fram and Paulmcdonald as to whether or not all head coaches should be presumed notable. In this case, the consensus is clear (at a 5-to-2 rate) that the coverage of Mains is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 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. Consensus is the improvements by Cbl62 show the article should not be deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F. W. Sweeney[edit]

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

No evidence could be found that Sweeney meets WP:BIO or WP:NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to admit I am less than convinced that even the current head coach at Doane College would be default notable. I really think we should stop assuming any college football coach is default notable and require all to pass GNG. That is clearly failed here. Maybe the head coaches of Division I-A colleges and universities of the NCAA, but I think even then we should require adequate sourcing before we create the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The AfD assumes that Doane was an insignificant football program. While that may or may not be true today, Sweeney was Doane's head coach in 1895 when Doane competed at the highest level of the sport. Sweeney's 1895 Doane team played three of its five games against opponents that are now Division I FBS Power Five programs -- a victory over Iowa and games against Nebraska and Kansas. In addition, Sweeney went on to serve as a trustee at Doane and as comptroller of one of the country's most important railroads -- the Northern Pacific Railway. While it is difficult to locate on-line newspaper sources from the 1890s in Nebraska, Sweeney qualifies under WP:CFBCOACH, and I added several sources which I believe are sufficient to demonstrate that he also passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Cbl62 (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cbl62 says it better than I can. There are some sources, and we need to keep in mind how different an era the 1890s were. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cbl62. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "highest level of the sport" is a meaningless metric when that level is a regional competition only, which only gets regional attention. That the teams they played against "now" are important is a case of WP:INHERITED. Being a railroad comptroller hardly is a notable job, and neither is being a college trustee. WP:CFBCOACH is not an accepted notability guideline, and a local consensus does not trump the GNG (for good reason). His obituary, which you added, doesn't even mention his coaching career, which seems strange if this such an important function that it creates automatic notability. If he was notable, according to that obituary, it clearly wasn't for his sporting career. The other obituary is clearly based on the same text, using the same wording in mutiple places, and also doesn't mention his sporting career at all. This is a passing mention, as is this.
  • Basically, there is not a single indepth source about his sporting career, and the two decent sources (the obituaries) don't mention it and read like reprints of what the family sent them, not some independent journalistic work. So no, he doesn't meet GNG or BASIC, and the college football notability essay is correctly not accepted as an actual guideline. Fram (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being a college trustee is never considered a sign of notability. If Sweeney is notable it is as comptroller for the Northern Pacific Railroad. If notability exists it is for that, and not at all for his not even mentioned in obituaries role in football. However since the obituaries do not exhibit indepdent reasearch, I would still say delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG from sources in article. One of the first college football programs in the state of Nebraska and helped to pioneer the sport in the area.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:11, 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 03:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Dann[edit]

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

No external evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:13, 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) 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Notts County F.C. season[edit]

2019–20 Notts County F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NSEASONS, only professional football league clubs qualify for season articles. As Notts County is now non-league, this article now fails the policy. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. I'm not convinced that these articles are of much particular value even for clubs in fully-pro leagues, so the last thing we need is to have more for clubs further down the pyramid. Number 57 13:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If sources are found to give a possible GNG argument then please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we've done this before, National League seasons are never notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm dubious about whether club season reviews are worth having unless it's a club like Liverpool or Man City which is in the top-level honours. I think this fails NSEASONS and don't see any way for it to meet GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some National League seasons have survived AFD in the past. This team has had over 150 seasons or so in a row in the Football League. Has everyone done their due diligence and confirmed there are no GNG sources? Nfitz (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since 2010 only one AfD on National League club seasons has resulted in a keep decision. Three ended in no consensus (one of which was deleted when renominated). The other 17 ended in delete verdicts. Whilst you're technically correct that some articles have survived AfD, it is very much the exception than the rule. Number 57 21:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Certainly - but a powerhouse famous historic club like Notts County could well be the exception that proves the rule (and I say this without having had the chance for a good search for GNG). The point is though that User:Joseph2302's claim that they are never notable is 100% false. Nfitz (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NSEASONS this has happened before and the consensus is that club season pages outsides the Football League should be deleted. I created a season for a team that was playing in the 5th tier and it was deleted for the same reason. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:58, 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 no consensus. There's a reason this has been sitting open for more than a week, and hasn't been relisted. It is unlikely further discussion will bring blinding clarity. Punting. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson[edit]

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

Clear WP:OR and WP:FANPAGE which is created only for competing with Cultural impact of the Beatles, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley and Cultural impact of Madonna, per the admission by the SPAs attempting to retain this article.[3][4][5][6]

Unlike Presley, Madonna there's not enough content to say about Michael Jackson since his influence can be only described as influence on individuals and there is List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson. As for this article, it was WP:POVFORKed from Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence.[7]

No improvements have been made in these many years. Looking at the article I can summarize it as follow:

There is almost nothing about "cultural impact" in the entire article.

There have been 2 conclusive discussions including an RfC on talk page and a music noticeboard, to keep this article a redirect but redirects are quickly reverted by the SPAs. Since there is nothing to see here and any essential content has been already covered at Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence I find delete to be the only option left here. Excelse (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a clear WP:POVFORK and always has been.
Although I initially felt that surely Jackson, of all people, had a major impact on culture, there are major problems:
  • the article has sources but the coverage is not sufficient for a standalone article
  • Much of the article does not even cover his cultural impact, just stuff Jackson fans want people to know. Example: Jackson's body of work reveals his attempt at fighting prejudice and injustice. The video for Black or White (1991), showed Jackson dancing with dancers of various ethnic groups and traditions, and the lyrics plead for racial tolerance and understanding.
  • most dangerously the article has been used extensively to create grossly biased coverage of Jackson (just see the Talk page for examples of that). It's bad right now but it's been much worse.
I really think the best thing to do is to wipe it. Popcornfud (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the arguments about the Beatles, Elvis and Madonna are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not relevant, but just looking at the article, I think it's clearly a notable subject with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. Sources about the initial reaction to his death is same as the death of any other artist who is notable. That does not prove any "cultural influence". Excelse (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ILIKEIT because I don't, particularly, and I didn't say anything about my preferences; I only talked about the sources. The titles of the articles that I referenced literally say that he "changed the music business" and "changed the world" — that is not coverage that "any other artist" gets. The sources clearly indicate that this topic is notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that is how your comment read. You would want to create a Cultural impact of James Brown after reading some sources.[8][9]] Or create a Cultural impact of Chuck Berry after reading some sources.[10][11] But all of them will end up getting deleted because merely some positive views or influence does not justify a stand alone "cultural impact" article. Excelse (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're predicting what I would or wouldn't want. I'm an uninvolved editor who's looking at an article, which has more than enough sources to demonstrate notability of the topic. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm only being frank here. These past months, I have witnessed all the strenuous efforts made by certain editors to improve the article, listening to comments and concerns of other editors, their willingness to collaborate, but despite all that, some other editors would systematically dismiss any and all edits as being trivial, impertinent or repetitive when it wasn't. Besides, that "puffery" tag is still there when it is certainly not anymore justifiable.
Michael Jackson's cultural impact on the world is unarguable and very well-documented. Since its 2017 launch, the article only improved in quality and pertinence, providing information relevant to the matter at hand according to Wikipedia standards. I, therefore, vote to keep the article, and it's all I'm gonna say on the matter. Israell (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Improvements have in fact been made. The poster that nominated this for deletion could also make improvements, but have opted not to. If you see improvements to be made, make them, talk page your ideas. Don’t just nominate a page for no good reason for deletion. Modern pop culture and back pop does not exist without Jackson’s culture impact that is noted and well sourced in the known good articles attached to this Wiki article. So let’s run down the list here: 1) it’s well sourced, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 2) It has notoriety 3) Improvements were made 4) There is no known good reason for deletion other than a flawed subjective view of the article. A view that is clearly Wikipedia:I just don't like it and nothing more. TruthGuardians (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any problem in keeping this article up, especially after seeing that there are many sources that have been also posted in this discussion by Toughpigs backing up the cultural impact Michael Jackson had. I do agree that if there are any POV issues they need to be discussed and dealt with, but that doesn't mean that the whole article has to be deleted since there's enough coverage of the topic.GiuliaZB (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what exactly Excelse and Popcornfud would consider cultural impact but Jackson's impact on visual arts, fashion, music videos are absolutely in that category. Calling the information about artists whose work was influenced by Jackson that "irrelevant one liner" is absurd especially when that exhibition was so successful. It's the very definition of cultural impact Michael Jackson: On the Wall becomes one of EMMA’s all-time visitor successes . " Mainly about his music videos. Nothing about "cultural impact"." This argument is self-defeating. His music videos had immense cultural impact. If they had not you wouldn't have seen all those Thriller flash mobs last Halloween more than 35 years after it premiered. If this is not cultural impact what would you call it: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] I could post literally hundreds of such examples from 2019 alone. What exactly do Excelse and Popcornfud want to achieve? Not to have a page about Jackson's cultural impact at all or have one with less supposed POV? Also, @Excelse: stop calling me SPA. I'm not a sockpuppet and you don't have the right to brand other editors as such without proof.(talk) 12:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimcastor, SPA refers to single-purpose account, not sock puppets. See WP:SPA. Excelse is referring to editors (Jackson fans) who maintain Wikipedia accounts almost entirely to edit Michael Jackson articles. This is a major problem with Michael Jackson articles - it's why sanctions were imposed on them (see discussion), and it's what we're seeing once again in this discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't apply to me either the vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with Jackson and if Excelse being an Elvis Presley fan who appears to edit Jackson pages for the purposes of promotion or showcasing his favored point of view (like Jackson's impact on visual artists is "irrelevant") I don't see why it's a problem if Jackson fans who obviously know a lot more about the subject than editors who don't care about it edit Jackson related pages. I still don't see what you and Excelse would consider cultural impact if not what is detailed in the article. Isn't the fact that Thriller still had a massive impact every Halloween cultural impact, for example? castorbailey (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it’s a major problem over at Elvis’s page as well? The following some time ago:
Excelse is a die hard fan of Elvis Presley (not that there is anything wrong with that) and has been blocked for using multiple accounts for POV pushing and edit warring (like they are doing on Jackson pages)on different Elvis Presley pages such as Memphis Mafia, Nick Adams (actor), and Personal relationships of Elvis Presley. The person who calling other editer singer purpose accounts has been almost 6 years now since started editing but has only made 650+ edits so far. It’s interesting to note that out of these, only 289 edits on the main space. The edit stats reveal that the user is not here for contributing to wikipedia for constructively. This why User:JG66 once asked him to contribute here for real instead of bludgeoning people with same old pointy arguments. He has been removing content in large scale without using talk pages or using proper edit summary in pages such as List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson, List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson, and Cultural impact of the Beatles.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Here is a link that reveals his POV pushing to put Elvis over Beatles as they are trying to do with Jackson on List of best-selling music artists [18] see here is he trying to put elvis over Michael jackson on Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artists_with_the_most_number-ones_on_the_U.S._Billboard_Hot_100&diff=prev&oldid=791106139 , he then tried to downplay Jackson’s vitiligo, here then he took different michael jackson pages Such as Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, Super Bowl XXVII halftime show nominated for deletion, then removed Michael Jacksons name from Superstar without giving any explanation [19]. This clearly show that the nominators is a single purpose acoount and it further exposes their anti-Jackson (hate) POV pushes.
When one takes a look at Jimcaster’s edit history and various topics he’s participated in, you can see that it’s been far more than just Jackson. You prowl Jackson pages as much, in fact far more, than JimCaster does, Popcorn. One can only assume the exact same thing about your account that Excelse is accusing Jimcaster’s account of. Proof is in the pudding. Compare and contrast, and one may be left with the impression that you have a single purpose account (which I don’t think you do, by the way) Before one decides to attack and throw around false assumptions and accusations, let’s take a look at the man in the mirror. Normally where there is smoke, there are mirrors. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TruthGuardians, . One can only assume the exact same thing about your account that Excelse is accusing Jimcaster’s account of. Proof is in the pudding. LOL. I invite anyone to view my edit history and see if they think I'm a single-purpose account. Popcornfud (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s what I am saying here. I want to make clear that I don’t think you have a single user account. I’m just stating the obvious is all. Each of you edit various topics and pages, each of you have partaken in a number of AFDs etc. for one to accuse JimCaster of single purpose, then they must accuse you, and me too. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, there are POV problems with the article. The fix is to edit therein, not to delete a topic that--no brainer--deserves a place on wikipedia. There are reliable sources, as proven. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Above arguments for 'keep' can be best described as WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST and WP:ITSNOTABLE. But the article is an obvious WP:POVFORK that fails to show why do we need a separate article for writing a couple of sensible sentence about the subject. Orientls (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Orientls' mention of "SOURCESMAYEXIST" or this anon's "vague hand waves of sources". The sources I mentioned above are currently used in the article. The article has more than 80 footnotes; the sources are already being used. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where as not even 4 or 8 sources of those "more than 80 footnotes" seem relevant enough to the article. 173.79.47.227 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that a number of users voting to keep have reactivated their accounts from weeks of hiatus in the wake of this AfD.[20][21][22] I am also seeing double voting above.[23] In the light of this obvious off-wiki canvassing, I would like to invite @TheLongTone, Chrishonduras, Flyer22 Reborn, Snow Rise, Black Kite, and Johnpacklambert: to share their views given their participation on talk page and other similar discussions relating to this page before. 173.79.47.227 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "double voting" was a formatting mistake — I thought the two paragraphs were by two different people, then realized an hour later that I was incorrect and reverted my edit: [24]. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several editors who have, in the past, opposed this article or expressed criticisms of it who have so far not voted here. I haven't pinged them for WP:CANVAS reasons. Popcornfud (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, on-wiki notification is better than off-wiki collaboration. 173.79.47.227 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Canvasing is canvasing per WP:CANVAS regardless. For this I’m going to ping an admin to chime in if weather or not a suspicious IP is allowed to canvas in this manner. Furthermore, would this be grounds to open a sock puppetry investigation as this user only pinged anti-Jackson editors with an obvious clear agenda. So to counteract, in an attempt to balance the voting, I too will be pinging others editors who have been involved with previous AFD And RFC. @Akhiljaxxn, Maile66, *Treker, SNUGGUMS, Owynhart, Colapeninsula, MusicPatrol, A Train, and Artw:.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
173.79.47.227 is obviously a brand-new account/user posting to influence this vote. So transparent... This is definitely grounds for a sockpuppetry or canvassing investigation. Israell (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
173.79.47.227, your accusation that I was canvased and--in your words--"reactivated their accounts from weeks of hiatus in the wake of this AfD" is simply wrong. If you bothered to look at my edit patterns with an open mind (rather than searching with a confirmation bias of your suspicions)you would see that it is quite normal for me to take multiple week breaks from here. I do so because editing here is a hobby that competes with other priorities in life, juggled specifically with work deadlines that frequently take me away from here weeks on end. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, WP:CANVAS is express about the fact there is no prohibition on contacting editors who have previously participated on a given article or reasonably narrow topic. I haven't checked every name pinged above, but it looks as though everyone notified thus far (on "both sides") falls into such a category. Provided they participated on this talk page in the last year or so, or discussed the viability of this particular article as a topic in any forum on the project, there would be no canvassing concern. However--just to underscore where the line is here--a given editor simply having an interest in Michael Jackson (or having edited or shared strong opinions on him as a topic somewhere on the project) would not, in itself, justify a ping to that editor; said editor would need to have been involved on this page at some time in relatively recent memory (or else they need to have participated in a discussion somewhere on the project as to the question of whether or not this article should be deleted) in order for the ping to not violate WP:Canvas. Also, it is required that the parties pinged have been neutrally selected; in other words, the party doing the solicitation of the opinions needs to not just cherry pick those likely to agree with their view, but rather ping all of the editors who participated in a given discussion or on a given page over a given period of time. Snow let's rap 19:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cultural impact of an individual should be covered in their biography. There is no reason to have a seperate article on the subject, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous claim in my opinion. Some people have impacts that span beyond what one single Wikipedia article could cover. I highly dislike the idea that Wikipedia should have blanked decisions on if "this specific type of thing should never have an article". GNG and the wastness of the reference material dictate when an article is waranted, not personal opinions from Wikipedia editors on if a subject is worthwhile.★Trekker (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert, per your statement above, there should be no cultural impact articles on Wikipedia at all! If your statement is correct, then other such articles should go, not just Michael Jackson's. Israell (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the others. JOEBRO64 16:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Excelse and his nomination. There is not improvements and was clearly created because we have other "Cultural impacts". Almost all are coverage in his main article. --Chrishonduras (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even with problematic article text, Jackson's impact is very much a legitimate subject matter. As noted above, there are trustworthy sources discussing how he impacted culture. I doubt all of it could concisely be summed up in his main page. By no means is the page perfect with (among other things) uncited text and improperly formatted references. At the same time, AFD isn't supposed to be article cleanup, and specific details on content issues are better discussed on the talk page. I personally don't believe for a moment this page was meant for "competing" with any other. The nominator seems to have misconstrued what others were saying in linked diffs. Those were more WP:WAX/WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments (i.e. "why can't we have this when something similar exists?") as a basis for keeping rather than trying to compete. If anything, those more likely served as ideas for how to set up the article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, since I wrote and cited most of it. The litany of scholarly articles and research on this subject are mentioned under References.
Why do these users keep pretending they actually want to improve the article? None of them has made a single contribution to the article. Every time they talk the purpose is to smear it. If anyone bothers to look through the talk page, they've made clear and undeniable intentions to remove this article while pretending to improve it. Oh, of course, once they've deleted enough stuff and smeared it enough, they say the article "isn't good enough." Anyone with half a brain can see the cynicism here. Ask yourself, what have they added to the article that improves it? None, of course. They're also preventing other users from improving it by engaging in edit wars.
As for "competing" with the likes of Elvis Presley and Madonna, imagine being such an insecure fan that you would go on Wikipedia to smear other musicians' pages to assert dominance. This is clear WP:Advocacy. If this isn't a cynical attack in midst of a fan war, then there is no such thing as a fan war.
And above all... Get a life. Stop reading tabloids. (They're made for the semi-literate. That's why I mainly cited academia, and not newspapers.) No matter how much you'd like Michael Jackson to be less popular than he actually is or how many Wiki pages you delete, no one outside WP gives a crap about fringe and prejudiced opinions. Make my day and tell me how you think deleting this WP page will improve your life. Owynhart 20:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Owynhart has been topic banned from this subject. Orientls (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Nominators' arguments sound like WP:IDon'tLikeIt and has been repeating this rhetoric since the month after the creation of this page back in 2017. His arguments remain the same even after the page has been rewritten by other editors over the past months. So I'm also repeating that Jackson's cultural impact is enormous and is the subject of numerous books, journal papers, articles, etc. So this is a prima facie encyclopedic topic with references from reliable sources and it simply can't be covered sufficiently in a biographical article. Beyond the encyclopedic merits, there are technical guideline reasons for encouraging this fork: the prose weight Michael Jackson, which is a Featured article, is approximately 76 KB (readable prose weight). This is 26 KB heavier than the size Wikipedia's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG, and should be forked.− Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Akhiljaxxn (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Delete. Disparate list of barely related facts. If we are to have an article like this, we should also consider Cultural impact of beer, Cultural impact of wheat, Cultural impact of sunbathing, Cultural impact of salt-water swimming pools, Cultural impact of Indian food in the UK. No: that is ridiculous. What's relevant and well-verified goes in the main article. Drmies (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ASZ. There is sufficient significant independent coverage in multiple sources to indicate GNG. If an article passes WP:GNG and independent of its main subject the subject warrant a standalone article.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Comments provided by trolley of Jackson fans above do read like WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST, WP: Clearly notable or more specifically, "but we need more time to fix this fancruft". desmay (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's difficult to reckon how anyone can deny Jackson's cultural impact & phenomenon? He has not only influenced artists but various spectrums such as fashion etc. He did set the benchmark for many important platforms that we know today such as the Super Bowl Halftime show, it's unfathomable how anyone can deny that. Looks like anti Jackson fanatics are back to work. Here,Michael Jackson is regularly referenced to in several reality shows and movies, where I live.I agree with some who proposed for an improvement regarding the contents & sources of the article, but putting it up for deletion is a far and inane reach. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edit Wikipedia on my free time and hardly get time to be here. Since,this talk page is open for constructive discussion,I think I can cast my vote when I feel it's necessary to point out the obvious.You surely cannot dictate me on this. Its been 6 years now since you've started editing but only made 650+ edits so far and out of these only made 289 edits on the main space. This just depicts on how problematic you are regarding this whole issue. Sorry to say. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why you are deceptively copy pasting garbage originally given to you by TruthGuardian for posting here? With 108 edits yourself, how can you brag about edit count? Or you are rid of the ability to realize that you are directly claiming that you are highly inferior in comparison? Now see this comment by Pglomba, admitting how he came here. Can we expect the obvious answer from you as well? Excelse (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Copy pasting garbage'? Sorry, what? I just stated the obvious and again, let me make it very clear that I cannot invest all my time on here and I wasn't bragging about edits. I'm still a novice when it comes to editing in Wikipedia and I'm still learning. So, I don't understand your accusation/point actually. Investing hours to persuade editors to delete a prominent page just because you happen to be a fan of another musical artist isn't on my to-do list, to be very honest. Deboleena.ghy (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the full list of Deboleena.ghy's contributions: [25]. I see 75+ non-Jackson-related edits. What was your accusation again? Israell (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article should be improved but MJ certainly had a big cultural impact on the world. He made Dance become Pop almost on his own.Pglomba (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Pglomba (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Congratulations on making 1st AfD vote ever after editing for almost 1 year just for voting on this AfD. See WP:FANPAGE and read why we frown upon them. Excelse (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excelse, congratulations on ignoring IP address 173.79.47.227, a brand-new user who only appeared on Wikipedia for this vote and also to indulge in vote-canvassing. As ShelbyMarion explained above, editing Wiki is a hobby for many, not a full-time commitment! That said, if there is an important vote pertaining to any subject they have an interest in, they may vote, and you should assume WP:GOODFAITH. I've just checked, and I see that Pglomba has been a long-time Wikipedia editor and is definitely not an SPA; your accusation is unwarranted. 173.79.47.227, on the other hand, only appeared on Wiki for this vote, and that's suspicious. Where did they come from? How did they find out about this vote, eh? Israell (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is entirely false because the IP edited other AfDs and he/she was not being a fanboy but made a policy-based comment which was better than most people here joining this AfD indeed after "weeks of hiatus". We are assuming WP:GOODFAITH in an area that is now covered by community sanctions because of this ongoing meatpuppetry which has been also observed by that IP. Excelse (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is entirely true because that vote 173.79.47.227 cast regarding the 'List of postal codes in Portugal' was their first-ever Wiki post (only to avoid accusations of WP:NOTHERE) followed by a vote in this AfD page and two subsequent comments, and they haven't posted anything else ever since. "Weeks of hiatus" is an impertinent statement. No editor is obligated to constantly edit Wiki. The more you falsely accuse others, the more you reveal your own temper and motives. Israell (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And curiously enough, that brand-new user (173.79.47.227) knew the Wiki usernames of all like-minded voters... Israell (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your world people may get accused of NOTHERE for seeking deletion of a fanpage about Jackson but not here. You were completely wrong with your false claim that this was IP's first AfD. You can speculate whatever you want, but there are many experienced dynamic IP editors here who don't use their account but know policies better than the Jackson-SPAs. Excelse (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never claimed it was 173.79.47.227's AfD! I claimed they were only on Wikipedia for this 'Cultural Impact of Michael Jackson' vote. (I clearly explain myself, and I am misquoted on purpose...) They only have four edits so far. Their very first edit is a vote regarding the 'List of postal codes in Portugal'; I've explained I suspect that vote of only having been cast to avoid an accusation of WP:NOTHERE. That vote was quickly followed by another vote and two subsequent posts here, on this AfD page, and they haven't posted anything ever since. You are the one constantly accusing all those who have an opinion different than yours of being a "fanboy", an "SPA" or whatever, and that's very disruptive. Israell (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to the fact that he edited other AfD first. There is a huge difference between a person who comes here for making a policy-based comment and a person who comes here for spewing his obsession for Michael Jackson. While the first one is obviously an experienced editor, latter is just a Jackson SPA. Excelse (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let me just say that this Excelse user is making me a little hesitant to participate in my first ever AfD. Is the user’s behavior normal for this process? Is this what is allowed here? There have been obvious attempts to improve the article, which is absolutely fine as is. It’s well sourced with credible sources that meets expectation for Wikipedia:Verifiability. To suggest that Jackson is not one of the most impactful artists, if not the most impactful popular artist of all time is not dwelling in reality. The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability without question.Fancypants786 (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congrats on first AfD vote ever. This AfD is not about discussing Jackson but the article in the question. Excelse (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fancypants786 did discuss the article! You are now wasting our time w/ bile and bitterness. They clearly explained that the article is "well sourced with credible sources that meets expectation for Wikipedia:Verifiability", that "there have been obvious attempts to improve the article, which is absolutely fine as is", and their other comments were pertinent to the matter at hand. Israell (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only part where he tries to make an argument is where he falsely alleges that people here "suggest that Jackson is not one of the most impactful artists", and that is how he is attempting to prove others wrong. No one is discussing Jackson here, but only the article which is a POVFORK. If he can focus on addressing the issues of the article then it would be much better. Excelse (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can I just jump in to remind everyone that the fact that Jackson had a major impact on culture is not in dispute? We all agree there. But comments such as It's difficult to reckon how anyone can deny Jackson's cultural impact & phenomenon? and To suggest that Jackson is not one of the most impactful artists, if not the most impactful popular artist of all time is not dwelling in reality indicate that arguments are not being read. What's under dispute is whether we need an article to cover that impact, which is a different question. Popcornfud (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I Disagree with this assesment. We can't assume that the arguments aren't being read. The article is up for deletion and that indicates that Jackson's impact to culture is being denied. If an edit or two is what is needed to rid the article of its minor issues, then make that edit. There's no need to delete an entire neccessary article.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is up for deletion and that indicates that Jackson's impact to culture is being denied. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is a misapprehension and does not logically follow. Saying we don't need an article about X does not mean that anyone is denying X is real. We are discussing whether X requires its own article. That's a different question. Popcornfud (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is not far fetched. I get it. I understand it. I just disagree and do not support the point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthGuardians (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I don't think this is a point of view, I think it's a fact. Again: Nobody is saying Michael Jackson did not have an impact on popular culture. Please bear this in mind. Popcornfud (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand, as I first explained here, is that TruthGuardians and others have made a genuine and strenuous effort to improve this article, showed willingness to collaborate only to face continual barrage of dismissal and reverts, which impeded improvement of the article. And once "shitty enough", it's nominated for deletion. Isn't that bright?! Just where is the puffery in the current version of the article? I'm being frank here, and the bias is beyond transparent. Instead of allowing us to improve the article some more (it is decent as it is), Excelse absolutely wants it GONE! Israell (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see many comments against users who support the delete nomination and his nominator. Maybe we need to have WP:GOODFAITH, because comments like: is "fandom war", "Get a life", "they've made clear and undeniable intentions to remove this article while pretending to improve it" and just "they" and a large etc of these comments don't help. --Chrishonduras (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See this from here.

I cant see anything in this section that is actually relevant to the topic. If no convincing argument is made, it's going down the tube.TheLongTone (talk) 5:54 am, 31 October 2019, Thursday (4 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−7)
Kill it. Popcornduff (talk) 6:00 am, 31 October 2019, Thursday (4 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−7)
& the stuff on racial identity and politics does not seem of much relevance either...TheLongTone (talk) 6:02 am, 31 October 2019, Thursday (4 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−7)
I'll let this cook a while before I get out the meat-cleaver TheLongTone (talk) 6:46 am, 31 October 2019, Thursday (4 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−7)

Tell me with a straight face these aren't trolling clowns. None of these editors make contributions to the article. They also say that this article unsalvageable and should be deleted. Might as well topic ban them if we are to make any improvements. Owynhart 19:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of these editors make contributions to the article. As a matter of fact, TheLongTone carried out extensive work on the article to bring it closer in line with Wikipedia policy, and deserves credit. Believe me, if you were to ever try to make this a Featured Article (good luck with that) you'd be glad for those edits. Popcornfud (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
↑↑↑ I really think the best thing to do is to wipe it. Popcornfud (talk) 12:34 pm, 20 March 2020, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−7) TheLongTone's "contributions." Your "contributions." Keep your face straighter. Your half-suppressed grin is showing. Owynhart 20:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it is you think is incriminating about that discussion. Yes, in that discussion about that section, I believed the best thing to do was to wipe the section, and I stand by that. And I think the best thing to do is to wipe the article. Deleting things is part of Wikipedia editing - that's why we have deletion discussions for example. Popcornfud (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for admitting that you want to delete this article and not improve it. Now can we topic ban this troll, so we can actually improve it? Because you've been sitting on that Puffery tag like it's your couch. Owynhart 20:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural impact of Michael Jackson It appears as though you may have overlooked the wealth of Google Books on the topic of his cultural impact.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No sources on Google books? That's not grounds for deletion at all! Besides, though you may not have seen any such sources, they do exist (as evidenced by Akhiljaxxn). Here's one of those sources: "This book reflects the cultural and musical impact that not only did Michael Jackson has on the world but on the author of this book."[1] Israell (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=6WhPAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA49&dq=cultural+impact+of+michael+jackson&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUyNSyorXoAhXrmXIEHeGvB_44HhDoAQheMAY#v=onepage&q=cultural%20impact%20of%20michael%20jackson&f=false
Published by Xlibris Corporation, an unreliable WP:SELFPUBLISHED source. Given you lack experience on AfDs, I would inform you that experienced editors don't consider self published sources or irrelevant junk to be defensible when it comes discussion about the existence of a POVFORK like this. Excelse (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. This was not an easy decision, but looking through the article and the discussion, it is clear that while this is a potentially notable subject matter, the numerous editors who have seemingly spent years doing their hardest to prevent a balanced and reasoned analysis of Michael Jackson's cultural impact mean this article is probably best being deleted to prevent disinformation from being presented on Wikipedia. Perhaps some more reasoned editors can create a better article on this at some point in the future, but currently this page is too much of a battleground to salvage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was inadvertently pinged when one of the Keep editors pasted in text from a previous discussion about the article (when I was genuinely pinged, I guess). I've just been working on the article, adding a bit of text from pieces I can access as a subscriber to Rock's Backpages. There are plenty more articles archived there; I haven't looked at them at all thoroughly, but I imagine there'd be more details that could be useful here. As for whether this article has a place on the encyclopedia, I really can't say. In theory, I'd say yes (as I think I did elsewhere), but it's still not fully borne out on the page. For an artist or any phenomenon to merit a dedicated cultural impact article, the article should be screaming (not literally) importance, significance, and while I agree with some of the Keeps that there's been a concerted campaign to scrap the article, at the same time I'm wondering why those eager to retain it haven't followed through on, say, mentions of Jackson's huge influence on video and dance, and presented a forceful argument in the text of how deeply felt these developments were at the time, socially and culturally. The bare bones that are on the page suggest a lot of potential, but then I seem to remember making noises in support of the article, way back whenever, on the strength of its potential. It seems a fair bit of work has taken place in that regard in the year or two since, and it's better for that, but we're talking about this again and the key culture-related points still seem undeveloped. Surely, any vaguely thorough Jackson biography or history of 1980s pop covers his impact in some detail. To the ardent Keeps, I'd say (with respect): do some work – did African-American political and community leaders, sports stars, rally around Jackson at the height of his fame? did Thriller encourage record companies to sign up more black artists? did Jackson's dance moves get kids moonwalking, etc, out in city streets all over the world? I'm just guessing with those questions, and perhaps they are half-answered already. But the point is, I'm not seeing issues that do seem worthy (videos, MTV, dance crazes/revival) explored in the sort of detail one would expect when they're so key to the artist's cultural impact. JG66 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This logical assessment is one I can get behind. Thanks for the tips and clarity put forth in this thoughtful response. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment JG66 has made good suggestions on how to improve the article. As for why editors left this article for abandon, there were apparently two trolls (who wanted to delete this article in the first place and not improve it) doing massive removals and other editors tried compromising with them. I don't agree with the idea of compromising with trolls. The purpose of editing articles is to improve and contribute to it. Deletions are meant for deletion nomination only. Owynhart 19:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding that puffery tag, I very honestly do not see how its presence is still justified. Puffery means "exaggerated praise", and there is none. This is a pertinent, quality article, and deletion is not the answer. Let us keep working on improving it. That said, it is decent as it is. Israell (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and it confused me when making some additions to the article just recently. There might be some statements that need reworking (which means it's no different from most articles on Wikipedia, even FAs), but no way is the top-of-page banner warranted. JG66 (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic has dozens and dozens of online and print sources that gives it Wikipedia:Notability. If the Delete crowd believes that the content of the article should be edited, then do so. Deleting the article will only lead to it’s recreation down the road. Also, what’s with the Puffery tag? It seems out of place and exaggerated. If needed at all, for 1-2 lines that can be deleted or edited.Factlibrary1 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Factlibrary1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. With only 16 edits, Factlibrary1 is editing after more than 3 months in order to !vote here just like another user who admits off-wiki coordination over this AfD.[26][reply]
  • To the closing admins, as a side note. I'm seeing mentions of racial bias on this topic (Michael Jackson), so I will say this. I am an admin on the Malayalam Wikipedia. A few weeks ago during a Conference, I had a chat with a bureaucrat from the English Wikipedia, and during the talk, we discussed systematic bias on Wikipedia and the Michael Jackson pages. A few more editors joined this discussion, and I showed them the discussion regarding the subject on the article’s talk page, related AFD, and admin noticeboard. They recognize some editors on this topic and are suspicious that this could be a place of systematic and racial bias editing on Wikipedia. I do hope that the admins (involved and uninvolved) will treat this subject seriously.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As can your actions. JG66 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in pretty poor taste to claim someone is pulling a "race card" when someone is trying to bring attention to biases on Wikipedia. Racial and gender bias are absolutely something which are worth keeping in mind?★Trekker (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the following reasons: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:How to delete a page, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and this was an easy decision. The latter gives clear guidelines that most delete votes are in violation of. It say, “Bear the following things in mind: It is better to improve an article than to delete it for not being good enough.” That is 100% the case with this article. Look at the history of the talk page. Clear attempts to improve the article has been made. The article has very, very minor issues. After reviewing the responses here, I suspect that comments like ...the numerous editors who have seemingly spent years doing their hardest to prevent a balanced and reasoned analysis of Michael Jackson's cultural impact mean this article is probably best being deleted to prevent disinformation... and like delete per the others. and Delete Agree with Excelse and his nomination.. are in clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid repeated arguments and Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. Timericon (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Timericon (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. With 96 edits, Timericon is editing after more than 1 month in order to !vote here just like another user who admits off-wiki coordination over this AfD.[27][reply]
  • Keep. I was still undecided when I made my comments above. I've done a fair bit of work on the article over the last day or more – adding details from The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, Bob Stanley's Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!: The Story of Pop Music from Bill Haley to Beyoncé, and a chapter in the Ashgate publication Performance and Popular Music: History, Place and Time written by Jaap Kooijman, associate professor in Media Studies and American Studies at the University of Amsterdam. I've also added text from Andy Gill's Jackson obituary in The Independent and a piece by Barney Hoskyns for UK Vogue, written at the height of Jackson's fame. I'm not pretending it's all fabulous stuff but I think it does support the need for this article and goes a decent way to solving the problems listed by Popcornfud. These were problems I partly agreed with, just as I could see Snuggums' view also (hence my fence sitting at the time). My interest is 1960s music so I haven't even looked in books dedicated to '80s pop culture – I wouldn't know where to start. As I think I said above, I wish some of this article's contributors would dig out such sources, because it's difficult to imagine they wouldn't benefit the article immensely and put it way beyond the ongoing scrutiny. Having worked for years here on the sociocultural impact of the Beatles and other '60s acts, it's a no-brainer to me: Michael Jackson, article on his cultural impact? Well, of course ... JG66 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read the article twice and I found it to be nothing more than a poorly written synthesis. Starting with the very first sentence of the article, two sources cited for the very first paragraph of the article, "is regarded as one of the most significant cultural figures of the 20th century and one of the most successful and influential entertainers", are far from satisfactory. First source[28] has been misrepresented, second one[29] is a self published source citing an exhibition curator. Rest of the article is apparently worse and suffers from same misinterpretation and shoddy sources. Azuredivay (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Numerous actions were taken and have just been taken to improve the article. The decent article is decent as it is, and total deletion is not justifiable. Israell (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Azuredivay: You say, "Rest of the article is apparently worse and suffers from same misinterpretation and shoddy sources." With regard to "apparently", have you actually read it? The text I've been adding certainly doesn't misrepresent the sources; I've been checking previous sources where I can – and rewording, cutting or adding cite-needed tag, as necessary. If something is supported by a poor source, or under closer examination perhaps not supported at all, could well be that an alternative is easy to find – I've seen many of the same statements appearing in the books and magazine articles I've brought to the page just recently, but haven't bothered to apply an alt source (unless I've seen that there's problem). Of course there's room for improvement (is there one page on Wikipedia where that isn't the case?), yet this isn't a Peer or Featured Article review. But the Taylor & Francis journal Popular Music & Society, Rolling Stone and the Rolling Stone Press book The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, Vogue, The Independent, Billboard, The Atlantic, texts published by academic publishing houses such as Edinburgh University Press, University of Michigan Press and Ashgate Publishing, a Jackson biography written by pop culture critic and scholar Joseph Vogel, the Guardian/NME/Times [etc] music critic Bob Stanley's pop history Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!: The Story of Pop Music from Bill Haley to Beyoncé ... are you seriously saying they're "shoddy sources"? JG66 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant WP:POVFORK. Saw about this on AN/I, and the rationale for deletion outweighs the rationale for keep. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 17:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decently sourced article on notable topic. Dimadick (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I tend to agree that most of the time this sort of separate article isn't merited, but there's an awful lot that could be said that would make the main article huge. So while I think more most topics it would be a merge, for the absolute most prominent fraction of a percent of entertainment, a stand-alone article is justified. I wouldn't !vote to keep all of the "cultural impact of..." articles, but this one seems reasonable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as other editors have said, there's plenty of info here for Jackson to have his own page like this, especially since editors including User:JG66 has decided to help expanding. There's no doubt Jackson has had a massive impact on pop culture, since Madonna "Queen of Pop" could have one, why can't the "King of Pop"? – zmbro (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can speak only for myself, but I think that if I had been summoned to any of the "Cultural impact of X" articles, I probably would have felt the article's justification was dubious and that, if allowed at all, it would need to meet certain particularly high standards with regard to tone, consistency with policy, and fidelity with the main and related articles. Snow let's rap 17:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oscillating, per WP:POVFORK and WP:NOPAGE rationales - It's a close call, and in any event, I think this one is destined for a 'no consensus' closure and the maintenance for the time being of the status quo. Nevertheless, I think it worth sharing what I think are the main policy issues/points of community conesnsus which most directly bear on this case. I was randomly bot-summoned to a previous RfC on the subject and subsequently pinged back to later iterations of the discussion--and my view has evolved a little over the course of those discussions.
To begin with, there's the fact that this article really couldn't be more of a blatant WP:POVFORK of Michael Jackson, covering the lion's share of the same topics and events with an extemely broad brush and a vague title that invites in virtually all that there is to discuss about the man as an encyclopedic topic. In this light, it is pretty anemic before the WP:NOPAGE test. However, there has been an argument advanced by some (which I think has some merit) that) that supports an WP:IAR/pragamtic exception to those rather fundamental policies--presumably, similar arguments have always been made for the "Cultural impact of Pop Musician X" articles, on the grounds that "there's just so much to say". I'm somewhat skeptical of that argument, because the vast majority of our articles on the world's most influential historical figures, classical artists, great philosophers, scientific luminaries, and yes, lauded modern entertainers, manage to capture the encyclopedic subtopics of a given subject in a network of related articles that does not include a parallel pov fork article. Nevertheless, I would not say there is an a priori assumption that a junior main article approach couldn't be adopted in some cases.
So might such an argument be used here to bootstrap and justify this article? Unfortunately, even having isolated the issues as I see them down to this level of granularity, I'm honestly not sure enough to stake out a position. I think we can start by recognizing that, for any case where we could make such an exception (where said exceptions open up the door for diverging coverage of the larger majority of core topics regarding the main article's subject matter--here, Michael Jackson) surely there must first be a met burden of exceptional quality and synergy with the main article, so as to not create competing narratives rather than resolving issues about the main discussion of the main and his legacy under one unified consensus. In fact, avoiding this situation is expressly outlined in WP:POVFORK as the main purpose of the policy. Ideally the article should be carefully crafted in draft space with an excess of care to make sure these two huge articles covering many common topics with similar scope, are not working at cross purposes (plus any additional concerns about tone, neutrality, and weight), and such concerns should be resolved before the article is moved into mainsapce. If that isn't done, then the article, being a POVFORK that isn't even beginning to pull it's weight for justifying an exception to the normal editorial/policy approach, should only be granted a finite amount of time to get to exceptional quality.
In the present instance, this article started out in a truly rough state, and if I can be blunt without intending to insult any good faith efforts from authors involved at that point, it was blatantly hagiographic, with massive issues regarding encyclopedic tone. It's been a while since I contributed to the last thread, and the difference between the article's content at that time and what I am reading now is truly a night and day situation. It's much more appropriately worded and makes much better use of attribution to contextualize praise for Jackson, rather than trying to say it in Wikipedia's voice. Had I been pinged to an AfD at that time, I think I almsot certainly would have endorsed a deletion, even if with most of the same caveats discussed above. Now the quality is at a level where I think we can address the central question of whether any major parallel article under such a title should be used under any circumstances. But in any event, good work on the part of the editors who have tightened the article up. Snow let's rap 17:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe Drmies is right. The article suffers from a severe level of OR. Some facts, with zero link to "cultural impact", are gathered in a professional manner to indicate a synthetic notability. Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence is already containing what I think can be deemed as showing his influence or lack thereof. For notability we need sources deeply dealing with the subject. --Mhhossein talk 12:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein, your post surprises me – although I'm not dismissing it at all. I'm including Snow Rise in my reply because that was a thoughtful post above, imo, with some interesting points.
Having worked on music articles for years here, there is a degree of synthesis in every single article (especially "Cultural impacts of"s – "CI"s from now on – or similar spin-off articles). I don't think that can be denied. WP:ALBUMSTYLE#Background says that one shouldn't assume that readers are au fait with the artist's background and we should seek to inform readers rather than think they're knowledgeable about the artist's standing. In album or artist articles, an editor digging through, say, music critic Robert Christgau's extensive online archive and finding a reference to the album/artist is similarly indulging in a degree of original research or synthesis, in so far as the Xgau piece could contain a mere passing reference (but a juicy quote) about the album/artist but it's not dedicated to the topic. Christgau is a well-known music critic and I'd be surprised if what he had to say about an album, however indirectly, would be considered at all problematic. A similar WP editorial approach informs content at biographical articles: content comes from, and is therefore synthesised from, sources that are way outside of those dedicated to the artist in question. Personally, I thinks this adds strength to the article because one gets a picture outside of potentially hagiographic biographers and, alternatively, writers out to denigrate their subject. In other words, one gets a good representation of how the majority of third-party sources view a subject. I don't think that's at all outside Wikipedia's policies, but at the same time, yes, it is dependent on some sort of editorial intervention.
So, further to SnowRise's comments in part, these CI articles are spin-offs and – yes I can't disagree – their content is determined by editorial intervention, but not OR (imo). That is, it often requires us to select content because the subject might not be covered in its precise description in enough sources, although no end of sources cover the subject in some way. If this is a problem, there should be no Cultural impact of Elvis Presley (which I've just noticed is tagged for some sort of problem). Why, because the sources don't appear to be dedicated to the CI of EP at all. As in this article, they're a collection of sources that mention the artist's cultural legacy or are dedicated to a certain aspect of the artist's career that authors say impacted on culture. It's similar, though way less so, I suggest, at Cultural impact of the Beatles. That article is based on several sources dedicated to the Beatles' cultural impact, but in the main also from sources that discuss the era or explore the cultural aspects that the Beatles are said to have impacted upon. The latter type of sources offer a substantial amount about "our" subject, even if their purview is way outside CI of the Beatles; but they are authoritative about their respective cultural topics, which adds credibility to the CI article because we're not just parroting what a cultural biography of the artist might say (and whose motivations and impartiality might be questionable) – we're showing that books dedicated to that cultural aspect similarly recognise the artist's significance. The CI of Michael Jackson does the same. Or at least that's the approach I've adopted. (How else do we know that an assertion stands up against a wider range of third-party sources?)
It is that question of, per SnowRise, a subject's cultural influence being too large to contain in their biographical article. The idea that Jackson's CI can be and is covered sufficiently in Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence is not what I've found from researching the subject. As an article writer here, I admit that I come to the CI of MJ thinking, Is there an article in it? In so far as Presley, Beatles and Madonna are afford CI articles, the answer's yes. With the charges of WP:POVFORK – and me not being at all knowledgeable about the range of MJ content across the encyclopedia – I've looked at Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence and it seems to me that doesn't begin to cover it. his cultural impact in the detail that a large number of third party sources afford the subject. [Changes made here on late 29 March in realisation at how, foolishly, I'd read FORK as WP:SPINOFF, and disregarded the POV element in the link; as explained below, I think the article is devoid of any POV issues.]] What I'm saying is, I'm waving a flag for keeping and continuing to improve the article, because the artist's cultural impact was enormous, and a wide search of dedicated and indirectly focused sources supports that. But if the current content is deemed OR and Synth, then so is every CI article, certainly those related to pop culture or artistic pursuits. I'd argue that the Beatles CI is the only exception, for the very reason that's a major part of their impact and legacy: their career is recognised as having inspired the formation of serious study into pop music and pop culture, they have by far the most literature dedicated to them out of any pop act, and there are books dedicated to their cultural impact.
Within WP The Beatles, I've been stretched very thin trying to work on, expand, and find a clear identity for not just the CI article, but Beatlemania and the articles on their individual (Beatlemania-ridden) tours and other aspects of their immense popularity and influence. In the case of the Beach Boys, there was a CI article for a while, now incorporated into the band article; their main creator, Brian Wilson, is afforded significant coverage as are issues relating to the Beach Boys' artistic direction: Musicianship of Brian Wilson, Brian Wilson is a genius, Don't fuck with the formula, Collapse of Smile (the latter in addition to Smile (Beach Boys album)). That level of WP coverage has been contested (I've been quite vocal as have others) for the way the identity of those articles is dependent on – in the terms we're using now – synthesising content from sources that aren't dedicated to the subject: they're pooling relevant sources as determined by a Wikipedia writer, in other words. I'm not saying go look there instead, just as I'm not saying tear down Beatlemania or CI of the Beatles – WP:Other stuff exists. But that same approach by Wikipedia editors is relevant to complaints here that CI of MJ is a synthesis of points as OR-ed by its contributors. I agree in a way – CI of MJ probably is just that – but I think it's put together from worthy sources. And it would seem all the current CI articles and possibly a whole lot more need to go if that approach means a page doesn't belong on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But still one should completely avoid basing their thoughts by contradicting WP:OSE. 'Keep' comments have failed to address the issues with WP:POVFORK, WP:NOR and also WP:MEAT, WP:BATTLE. The content of the whole article fails to demonstrate any value for encyclopedia given the violation of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOR. The battleground mentality we see here certainly show that the page is likely to remain a POVFORK forever and as such this article would be better off deleted as again, the main article already covers this subject with a better quality. This is yet another WP:POVFORK which was created mainly because it could never find a place on the main article. This is why POVFORKs should be avoided. WP:ASSERTN-type comments are far from analyzing the actual issues with this article.  Azuredivay (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Azuredivay: As above with your blanket statement about the quality of the sources, I don't find your argument holds up to scrutiny. You're now citing several policies, vaguely, with no meat on the bones. WP:FANCRUFT has nothing to do with the article content as it currently stands. (Having said that, I've barely touched the article's section on Global impact; feel free to tag any potential issues there.)
As for the links you provide, I'd say, as for all "Cultural impact" articles and a whole lot more: WP:SPINOFF. This CI article qualifies as an example of the second option offered there, namely a meta-article:
Sometimes, when an article gets too long (see Wikipedia:Article size), an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle, and the handling of that subject in the main article is condensed into a brief summary section. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new subarticle is sometimes called a "spinoff" from the main article ("spinout" leads elsewhere); Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique.
Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a forbidden POV fork. However, the moved material must leave a WP:NPOV summary section of that material behind. If it doesn't, then the "spinning off" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others and ignore one viewpoint.
This article does not present any violation of that last point. It is expanding on points made at Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence, rather than offering a narrative that's at odds with the latter's.
WP:SPINOFF goes on to say:
Summary style meta-articles, with subarticles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the subarticles, and the summary sections, conform to WP:NPOV. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject in different articles, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter ... However, it is possible for article spinoffs to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinoff [[Criticism of XYZ]]. Spinoffs are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.
There's no problem there either. With regard to NPOV, I'd say this article more than conforms. There's a long section on his impact on Tabloid media that hardly presents the subject in too glorious a light yet does include some commentary that seeks to locate his controversial public image in a non-sensationalist light and recognise it as a reflection of Michael Jackson's influence and reach at the time. I've also added mention, under Race politics, that not all listeners were impressed with Jackson's move into what was perceived as a "white" domain, with Thriller. The final point above, about how a statement that's "inadmissible for content policy reasons" at the main article is similarly inadmissible at any spinoff, is not relevant here. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm puzzled, I'm categorically flummoxed in fact, by a lot of what's occurred in this article's on/off/on again journey. I say this from having viewed the article history, edit by edit in some cases, and from skimming over previous discussions. Supporters of the article have been dismissively branded as "fans", yet I've seen signs of those same fan/editors working to remove examples of puffery in previous months. Those wanting to see the article gone have variously appealed for GOODFAITH towards the nominator and badgered the keeps with blue links to policies in an intimidatory fashion. I'm not a "fan" – although, as ever, I find that engaging with a subject elicits a great deal of untapped appreciation – and I'm not a wikilawyer. With regard to the latter, I can't believe that WP:SPINOFF hasn't come up in this discussion. I'm not dismissing the POV concerns that might have originated from the article in an earlier guise, nor from any discourse over the last couple of years – but no one here has raised the idea of WP:SPINOFF. In my stupidity (finally I can use that word, because I'm talking about myself!), I mistook any mention above of FORK as SPINOFF. Yes indeed. But I can't help wondering why none of the delete editors, who appear to have such a grasp of Wikipedia's policies and the moral high ground, have cited SPINOFF. It speaks of a will to win the argument, rather than ensuring the community decides based on a fair representation of policies. Honestly, the lawyers here have been on one side of the room. Wikilawyering is not condoned.

The nominator of this AfD, Excelse, has done pretty much nothing on Wikipedia since January 2019, aside from attending to this and any other issues relating to an alleged bias towards Michael Jackson. Which would be fine if they didn't get so in the face of any editor who reappears when the CI article is subject to a second AfD. They had AllMusic declared unreliable by a posse at RSN, thereby ensuring that The Beatles couldn't state that the Beatles were the most influential act in pop music. I'm not bothered, I know other sources are out there, but the Elvis Presley bias that others have mentioned comes to mind, as it did then. AllMusic is a source that's long been identified as reliable, btw; it appears in no end of GAs and FAs.

I know I'm adding to the dysfunction here. But what do you do when it's so uncomfortably apparent that the issue's been biased in favour of the deletionists? The article carried a puffery tag long after such concerns were relevant; requests were put to the editor in question, who seemed to be rendered mute by the stress of it all. Together with the one-sided wikilawyering, it's as if the article was doubly guilty – deletable until proved keepable. So, in short: WP:SPINOFF, and I'm as frustrated with myself as I am with everything else here that I didn't come across that sooner. JG66 (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPINOFF applies only on sensible content forks which are carried out after consensus. You cannot justify a blatant POVFORK which has been recreated every time against consensus. You are kidding when you are telling us that the content of this article, which is of garbage quality, needs to be parked in the main article of Michael Jackson which is rather small having only 76k bytes. That will never happen. AllMusic is popularly noted for being an unreliable source.[30] You should review WP:BLUDGEON and find something better to do than wikilawyer this POVFORK. desmay (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything there that states a spinoff article can only be created after consensus. This article appears to have been laden with puffery and in need of a neutral tone, especially with regard to statements made in Wikipedia's voice; these are no longer issues. The discussion you linked to regarding AllMusic, from 2009, does not identify it as an unreliable source at all. It's one editor saying they don't like it and misunderstanding/misrepresenting the consensus from an earlier discussion; all the other editors there point out that AllMusic, like any source, has its flaws. Hardly "popularly noted". JG66 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Last time I was here I decided not to take a stance on this specific page, but I have now looked over the article and searched for further coverage online and I have come to the conclusion that I belive this is not only a worthy extension of information which could not fit on Jacksons' main article due to size but also a subject notable in its own right! I feel like this article is in need of major extension and could easily be a featured article in the future with some effort. There is much that has been writen about the legacy and impact left behind of Jackson due to his imenase influence and the controversies which have left a major mark not only on his own legacy but the culture in egeneral.★Trekker (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which biases exactly and what fancruft exactly? People keep claiming that these issues exist but no one is really bringing up concrete examples in my opinion. I see no more bias or "fancruft" here than Cultural impact of Madonna or Cultural impact of the Beatles. Only difference between this article and those is that this one is shorter, which isn't suprising considering it hasn't been around as long.★Trekker (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's becoming a bit like some editors don't like the idea of there being an article about Michael Jackson's cultural impact, but for a while I've wondered if they're actually reading the article. (Having said that, I appreciate there are editors – and I was one originally – who might lean towards Keep because they do like the idea, at least they feel that MJ's influence was such that it merits a CI article.)
With the above in mind and with the daily expansion of the article, I've been tempted to ping a few of the Deleters from earlier in the AfD, because the October puffery tag and (pretty poor and unrepresentative) lead section hardly combined to create a good first impression of the article. 1292simon: I've just expanded the lead to better reflect content after many additions over the last few days. This article's scope is not covered in any great detail at Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence – much of it's not there at all. Your contribs show you weighed in briefly at several AfDs, back to back. Would you mind looking at this article's new lead? It's no great work of art, but it now provides a way more accurate overview of the article's content. Do you still think this article is just POVFORK, bias and fancruft, that the points mentioned don't allow for an article dedicated to Jackson's cultural impact? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JG66. Thanks for your improvements to the lead section. I think the first few paragraphs (up until "success at this time was credited with rescuing the music industry out its late-1970s recession") are now well balanced and thoroughly sourced. My vote is still to remove this article (vote changed from Delete to Redirect above) however, as I believe that useful content such as this could easily be into Michael Jackson#Legacy and influence. Thank you for your respectful discussion. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
1292simon: thanks for revisiting. Just to confirm, you know that no sources are necessary in the lead, as long as the content is sourced in the main body (which it is)? With the lead as it currently stands, it's actually the inclusion of references up to the point you identify that needs some attention (ie, they're only required when they support potentially contentious statements – MOS:LEADCITE); although, given the article's here at AfD, I acknowledge that the potentially-contentious factor is somewhat heightened. Apologies for coming back at you a second time. It's just that your comment about the lead's opening paras being "well balanced and thoroughly sourced" got me wondering. JG66 (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while I certainly agree that the article has come a long way towards more encyclopedic tone recently, Simon's point is not moot, but in fact tracks preciesely with WP:POVFORK: regardless of whether a given forked article is neutrally written at a given point in time, it remains a situation that may be untenable in terms of allowing two main articles with two competing consensus processes potentially reaching very different perspectives on a wide variety of subtopics while presenting a substantial overview of the shared subject (here, Jackson). The problem is that this article's title/subject matter is so broad that it pulls in just about every single topic that might also be discussed at Michael Jackson, which is precisely the situation the policy is meant to prohibit. So Simon's objection is a reasonable one, regardless of how the article currently reads (and I agree that great strides have been made to improve this article's content--I'm just not sure if that is sufficient reason to allow the article to continue). The fact of the matter is, pretty much every subsection title of this article is a topic that is discussed to some significant extent in the parent article, with the partial exception of the "Global impact" section, which is frankly the currently most problematic part of this article, being little more than a losely related collection of WP:TRIVA without much context or cohesion.
As I said myself above, the real question at this point is whether (when we remove redundant information) this article just has so much extra information in it (information which is vital to an ecncylopedic understanding of the man) that an exception should be made with regard to POVFORK. But it's important that we understand that distinction and recognize that we would be making an WP:IAR call on the matter, because I don't think there's really a legitimate argument to be made that this is not a POVFORK, nor that it will not generate a certain amount of divergent consensus (and probably a fair bit of bias and francruft from time to time, as Simon suggests). The questions we have have to answer then are: 1) even with these concerns, does the benefit (extra context regarding the man's work and legacy) outweigh the issues (extra work in maitenance and fighting the kind of hagiography that intiially defined this article), and 2) can those issues realsitically be kept under control with this kind of forked/two main articles structure? Those are two very complciated questions in their own right, but to reach them we must first move past the question of whether this article as it stands is consistent with our typical POVFORK/NOPAGE procedures. It really isn't, but I don't think that necesarily has to be the end of the inquiry. Snow let's rap 02:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JG66. Yes, I appreciate that there is no requirement for the lead to include references, as long as they are provided in the body. I merely mentioned it as a compliment because it makes it easier than cross-checking each statement in the body of the article. Regardless, my opinion on the AfD remains based on the POVFORK issues explained above by Snow (much more eloquantly than I could!) above. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
  • Keep Seems to be more than enough material and sources to justify an article. Seems appropriate for the Michael Jackson article to summarize this material in the Legacy & Influence section, but provide a link to a full article with more detailed discussion. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Drmies' analysis is persuasive, and the article suffers from insurmountable WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. The "legacy and influence" section of the main biographical article is sufficient to show his notability without running afoul of the OR/SYNTH/CRUFT issues. I would be fine with a redirect as well. Neutralitytalk 15:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bunty Rathore[edit]

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

Non-notable writer and actor with no notable work. Lacks in-depth coverage and in my opinion fails WP:GNG an WP:BIO. - FitIndia Talk Commons 11:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia Talk Commons 11:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia Talk Commons 11:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From what I've found from a google news search, I only see trival mentions. I think this is a matter on the significance of his role in significant films to establish nobility. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}Copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 16:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems like a WP:UPE article which has been declined at AfC Draft:Bunty Rathore. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:57, 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 keep. – bradv🍁 01:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lipton[edit]

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

WP:BIO – not notable – subject has very limited coverage in reliable secondary sources, which has caused a history of problems with this article, with a variety of non-reliable sources being used to add positive and negative comment and then removed. As it is, the bulk of this article is based on the subject’s own CV. Mauls (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His first book has 1,104 citations listed on Google Scholar, there are at least 5 articles with between 100 and 400 citations, and there are plenty of book/articles in the 40–100-citation ballpark. Mauls, you're right that the article is in poor shape—and that his output may be problematic—but surely he is (for better or worse) influential? Wordreader's 2019 talk-page post makes this point, both pointing to critiques, and noting that "There are so many articles and podcasts both by Lipton himself and about Lipton by new-agers, that critique is drowned out." --Usernameunique (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement to be 'Wikipedia notable' for a biographical article is for sufficient articles in reliable secondary sources. Those appear to be sorely lacking. If his own work is so notable, why is it not being mentioned in reputable secondary sources? Lipton appears to be only notable in a very niche sense - it is not only critiques that are missing, it is also positive secondary-source sources. Mauls (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's one avenue to Wikipedia notability, but others include "is widely cited by peers or successors." I would think some 2,000 citations would do that trick. And it's not like secondary sources don't exist; a brief search shows that they do (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). --Usernameunique (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement for mentions in reliable secondary sources is the 'general notability guideline' for any article (WP:GNG). The reason this is the base notability criteria is to avoid very poor quality articles (like this one) languishing in a limbo where there is insufficient reliable information to make them meaningful.
As you are refering to a Google Scholar count (and as the article is based Bruce Lipton being an academic), it would seem that WP:ACADEMIC is the correct criteria to use. It should be noted that MOS stays that a count of citations in Google Scholar is not taken as evidence of notability: Google Scholar "includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. It has also been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material". It is therefore necessary to go deeper and actually show the impact that the work has caused. Mauls (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As was clear in my last comment, I was referring to the notability standards for authors, not for academics. Of course, He may meet both, but clearly, he is an author and "is widely cited by peers or successors." And as noted above, there are plenty of secondary sources to boot. This may be a "very poor quality article" as you say, but "even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." --Usernameunique (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The caution on Google Scholar still stands - that figure is not evidence of being "widely cited by peers or successors". Secondary sources do not count if they are merely a "trivial mention" - I still fail to see any evidence of there being numerous secondary sources that are about Bruce Lipton in any real way, rather than mentioning him or his work in passing. Mauls (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to quote the that piece on poor writing in full: "if the source material exists even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." We are clearly lacking source material to use to build a biographical article. The poor quality article is the outcome, the symptom – and I do not cite it as the reason for deletion – the lack of secondary sources is the cause, and the reason this article will be permanently poor. Mauls (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides ignoring the secondary sources highlighted above, that analysis conflates the notability standards for authors and academics. The former asks only about breadth of influence ("is widely cited"); the latter asks about depth of influence ("has had a significant impact"). One would have to dive into the various citing works to measure Lipton's impact, but the breadth of his influence is readily apparent. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - he's certainly well-known if "fringey". Bearian (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GirthSummit (blether) 10:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is inherently fringy, and we do not have the level of reliable sourcing discussing him in detail we demand to create an article on a fringe figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No GS profile, so a bit difficult to identify all publications. However some thousand GS citations suggests WP:Prof#C1 is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep. He appears to be a fringe practitioner, but a somewhat notable one, and the sources in our article (SF Chronicle, Frontiers, and SBM) are mainstream enough to provide a neutral point of view on his fringe beliefs as well as to demonstrate the level of their notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shady figure that makes money from conferences where he talks fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.61.182.38 (talk) 19:59, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Ross[edit]

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

The subject is far from meeting both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. No coverage found. Less Unless (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 10:11, 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Formula One World Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2022 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON This is about a sports event almost two years away. Coronavirus may still be going on. Nothing of importance here yet. Article was deleted around 6 weeks ago. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions.
SSSB (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definetely keep, considering this entire AfD is based on the article being "recreated using the same content". When this was explained, rather than accepting the circumstances have changed, the nominator persisted. 6 weeks ago, this article contained only the contracts for the 2022 season and no further content. As of yesterday/today, the 2022 season will now be the season in which the 2021 regulations take force due to the interruptions COVID-19 has inflicted on the 2020 season. If the nominator had read the article, they would notice the content is not at all the same, and there is extensive content here that was not there 6 weeks ago. There is not a single shred of reason behind this AfD and I find it both absurd and laughable that it has been pushed through.
5225C (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as a direct result of the coronavirus, rule changes that were planned for 2021—quite possibly the biggest changes in the sport's 70-plus year history—had to be delayed until 2022. These rules and the circumstances behind the delay are covered in detail with a wide variety of reliable sources. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:TOOSOON is an essay which effectivly says that the subject lacks notability and/or WP:SIGCOV now but may/will do so in the future. However given that the 2022 season will see a major re-writting of the rules, most, if not all, of which are officially confirmed. Therefore WP:TOOSOON does not apply. The postponment of the major rules changes to 2022 combined with the dozens, if not hundreds, of sperate sources which cover this mean it satisfies the inclusion criteria.
    SSSB (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the same reasons already given Sr88, talk. 23:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to recent events which now mean there is significant discussion in the media etc about the 2022 season, as can be seen in the article. A7V2 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 2022 season now has a lot of new rules- deferred from 2021. The 2021 season article was kept for a similar reason at a similar time last year, and the new rules information is more concrete than at that time. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The new regulations need to be explained somewhere so it makes sense to allow the 2022 season page to exist even if it goes against the normal recommended timeline for the page to exist. MetalDylan (talk) 10:39, 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 merge to Old German herding dogs. MBisanz talk 03:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old German Shepherd Dog[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The page has three citations, the first is appears to be the German breed club (itself not an independent reliable source) which shows no hits for “ Altdeutscher Schäferhund” in it search function. The second is a dead link about German Shepherds in the FCI website, their German Shepherd standard makes no mention of the type, only that the German Shepherd can have either a short or a long coat. The third reference cannot be verified. A google search found nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination – I have just discovered a previous nomination under an incorrect spelling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old German Sheperd Dog. The arguments for keep seem to be there is an article on German Wikipedia and “Altdeutscher Schäferhund” generates a number of google hits. The German page appears to have had an issues notice in place since 2012 and as stated above I could find nothing attributable on google. Cavalryman (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

NB This is not one of the eight historic breeds of old German shepherd dog listed here by the Gesellschaft zur Erhaltung alter und gefährdeter Haustierrassen – they are the Altdeutscher Tiger, the Fuchshunde, the Gelbbacke, the Rollhaariger Altdeutscher, the Schaf- or Hütepudel, the Schwarzer Altdeutscher, the Strobel and the Süddeutscher Schwarzer (the Westerwälder Kuhhund, also listed on that page, is a cow-herding breed). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Old German herding dogs. The article states that this is simply a long-haired variety of the German shepherd for which "there are efforts to establish this variety as a separate breed." Only it is not a breed, and the variety is not notable. William Harristalk 20:59, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayo Oladiran Arulogun[edit]

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

Non notable educator--Deputy Vice-chancellor is a midlevel administrative position only; there is little published work. .. It was misleading to say this was "accepted from draft"-- it was first written in draft space, and then copy-pasted here after being declined . See also the adjacent nomination. This looks like COI editing for the university. The same editor wrote Mouhammad Mpezamihigo, which was legitimately accepted from draft, and meets our notability requirements as vice-chancellor, which is head of the university; I am not nominating that article for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Desire Busingye[edit]

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

Non notable educator--Deputy Vice-chancellor is a midlevel administrative position only; he published work is very little cited --citations 20, 7, 5, ...

It was misleading to say this was "accepted from draft"-- it was first written in draft space as Draft:Janice D. Busingye, and then copy-pasted here without being actually submitted.

See also the adjacent nomination. This looks like COI editing for the university.

The same editor wrote Mouhammad Mpezamihigo, which was legitimately accepted from draft, and is not being nominated for deletion; he is Vice-Chancellor, the effective head of the university in UK-pattern systems, and therefore by convention notable DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:11, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M. Jaffar-ur-Rehman[edit]

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

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the person was a dean. You don't think that meets WP:NACADEMIC? Same goes for the all the other ones. It seems like they all have been in high up academic positions that would qualify as notable. BTW, you should have done them all as one AfD to simplify things. Especially since they all seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC and I don't feel like copy and pasting the same vote a bunch of different times. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - position as Dean satisfies #6 of the criteria at WP:ACADEMICS. (Note that these nominations are quite a mixed bunch, and will have to be assessed individually; keeping them separate was justified.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Ach weel, it appears that's correct about deanship not qualifying. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Jinnah University is a for-profit 20 year old university and you say its dean is notable? I doubt, the university itself is notable. Störm (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the position as dean does not satisfy academic notability requirements. That is only satisfied by a vice chancelor or president, not by a head of a faculty within a university.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, @Johnpacklambert: or @Störm: Where does the notability guidelines say it only applies to vice chancelor or president? WP:NACADEMIC just says "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." Last I checked a dean is a named chair. I'm perfectly willing to change my vote if it can be shown from somewhere that dean doesn't count though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Dean is not a "named chair". If so, what is the name? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I miss spoke in my last message about a dean being a named chair. It doesn't matter though since they don't have to be. Since deans are above named chairs in authority. So it wouldn't make sense if they didn't qualify if named chairs do. It's still a distinguished professor appointment whatever you want to call it. Unless anyone has any evidence to the contrary. Also, See WP:Articles for deletion/Phillip H. Wiebe. Which show's precedence that articles about deans are kept.--Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable computer scientist of Pakistan. Dean at one university and served on faculty at three major universities of Pakistan. Let Wikipedia staff decide whether a vice chancellor and president, as mentioned in the above comment, are the only ones that deserve an article on Wikipedia. We all know there are probably thousands and thousands of Wiki articles on university professors, educators and computer scientists right now from all over the world on Wikipedia, not only from Pakistan alone. What happens to all of them? I agree with Adamant1 and Elmidae assessments above that the subject of this article qualifies under WP:ACADEMICS and WP:NACADEMIC. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient impact of GS cites to satisfy any part of WP:Prof. WP:Memorial Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Citation record does not pass WP:PROF#C1. Dean is an administrative position well below head of whole university, so (contrary to what some of the opinions above state) it passes neither #C5 (for people given named chairs for their scholarly accomplishments, not for administrators) nor #C6 (for people who are heads of entire universities, not for lower-level administrators). No other form of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
#C5 doesn't say just named chairs qualify. Your leaving out the part after that where it says "or a distinguished professor appointment." Which a dean would be. Deans are actually higher in authority and are more distinguished then chairs are. So it wouldn't make sense that #C5 wouldn't apply to them but it would to chairs. Otherwise, it would just explicitly say so and it doesn't. See WP:Articles for deletion/Phillip H. Wiebe. He was a dean and the article was kept. So there's even precedence. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether or not a dean is "higher in authority" than a named chair. That's not what WP:PROF is about. The point is to evaluate whether an individual's scholarly work has been influential in the academic community. Named chairs are clear-cut signifiers of such influence; deanships are not. The fifteen-year-old AfD for Wiebe is not comparable. In addition to holding administrative positions, Wiebe was an author of multiple academic books, raising at least the possibility of being notable for passing WP:AUTHOR. That does not appear to be applicable here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: Where does WP:Notability (academics) say that notability is contingent on publishing influential academic works? It says "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions" qualify for notability. Nowhere does is it say they have to have an appointment and be influentially published. It even says "Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable." So I don't know where your getting that they have to be an established academic author from. On Wiebe, three of the votes mention that his notability partly comes from being a dean. I'm not sure how you can treat it like it had nothing to do with the article being kept. With WP:AUTHOR, WP:Notability (academics) says "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH" So it's pretty clear we should separate the two when are deciding notability. This person has some published journal articles anyway and it's pretty likely they played into his appointment as dean. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Distinguished professor is a job title higher than full professor, given to academics with exceptional scholarly accomplishments. Dean is a managerial position, usually given to senior faculty, but occasionally held by people at levels lower than full professor. They are two completely different things. Being a dean absolutely does not qualify for #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The very first line of WP:PROF says, This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. Being a dean is not an academic achievement. It's a management job. XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of passing WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. Deanship is too low an administrative position to qualify for WP:PROF#C6. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Named chairs are created to recognize high levels of academic contribution. Deans exist because there is a need for someone to be the administrator running and institution. In 1980 in the US there were very few named chairs, there were about as many deans as today. Today there may overall be more named chairs, although I am not sure. These are two different things. Dean is a rotated academic leadership post, chairs are appointments that are often held for the rest of ones life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ngrewal1 - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dean is certainly not sufficient for WP:NPROF C6 (per long-standing consensus), and is on a completely different track from C5. No other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Quddoos Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Syed Atiqul Qadir[edit]

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

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Mir Imdad Ali[edit]

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

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:38, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zainuddin[edit]

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

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:39, 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 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 03:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammad Ashraf[edit]

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

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:41, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Syed Fazlur Rahman[edit]

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

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:19, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Khaliluddin[edit]

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

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:20, 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) 20:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abdul Mujeeb[edit]

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

No coverage found other than some mentions. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on my interpretation of the "Pride of Performance" award as a reasonably Big Thing. If that's not the case, then notability looks on the doutbful side to me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a highly selective award. The president could award it to hundreds in one year. Störm (talk) 06:36, 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 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 03:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Sharif Chattar[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohiuddin[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vice chancellor, double fellow of elective scientific societies, and a prize in his name; that's a notable scientist. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:26, 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 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 03:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hina Baig[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Busy in various commissions and work groups, but I don't believe her responsibilities create sufficient notability. Only woman Senior Research Scientist in [dept division] doesn't really carry a lot of weight either, sorry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:22, 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 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 03:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niaz Ahmad Chaudhry[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azra Quraishi[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The French Ordre des Palmes académiques qualifies her as notable, by WP:NPROF#2:"has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". We are unlikely to easily find much online coverage of a person who died in 2002 in Pakistan, but the major obituary in her country's botany journal is a thorough source. Unfortunately although her obituarists say "In a Memorial reference on 26 November 2002, Dr. Badruddin Soomro, Chairman PARC, Islamabad announced that the Institute of Agriculture Biotechnology and Genetics Research (IABGR) NARC/PARC, Islamabad has been renamed after Dr. Azra Quraishi", I can't find evidence of this renaming (it might have been renamed again - a lot can happen in 18 years!) PamD 15:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the order of academic palms and the published obituary are enough, even though the citation record is not impressive by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These awards are enough to establish notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two international awards, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Millenium Award for Best Scintist and Hamdard Pakistan Award. This scientist was definitely notable! Rechecked and updated the existing references. They are all working. There are two or duplicate AfD Pakistan and AfD India listings at the same time by the same deletion nominator! Possibly an unintended mistake? Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:31, 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 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 03:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Bashir[edit]

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a little hard to judge fairly because it's written as a plain promo CV (grr...), but I gather the main claim to notability is being Senior Research Officer on Pakistan's science advisory council. I don't believe that sufficies for WP:NACADEMICS. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:39, 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 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 03:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Mubarak[edit]

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

No coverage found other than a few passing mentions. Fails WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:04, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 03:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 FC Wacker Innsbruck (2002) season[edit]

2019–20 FC Wacker Innsbruck (2002) season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The seasonal article fails WP:GNG as the only three resources are basically routine for a seasonal article. HawkAussie (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a season in a fully-professional league (Austrian Football Second League) so is notable per NSEASONS. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 09:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unfortunately HawkAussie I think you should have reviewed the fully pro leagues list before nomination. However, it could be considered a delete unless it is kept to a good standard for it can still fail WP:GNG if not improved, but as it's the current season I am will to give it leeway for now. Govvy (talk) 13:30, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Matamoros[edit]

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

Attempted to save this article by moving it back to draft space, but page creator just blanked the draft and recreated the page. I'm not seeing how this person pass WP:BIO or WP:NFOOTY. All coverage of the subject seems to be solely in connection to the company. The awards mentioned such as the forbes 30 under 30 were all awarded to the company not the subject. Article is also overly promotional and reads more like a CV than a formal, neutral article. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am just starting out with Wikipedia, so I am getting used to it all. Since there were different ways to submit an article, I got a little confused. I submitted an article for review, and then moved it from "drafts" to "article". When I did that, there seemed to be some kind of "Error" saying that there were two version of the article. That is why I tried to delete the version that was in my sandbox. I first tried to delete it by clearing the text, but that did not work. Then, I read a wikipedia article saying that by adding "db-u1" to the top of the draft, I could delete it. Was that the right way to go about it?
In regards to the article itself, I believe it should stay on Wikipedia. Please see my responses to your comments below:
- WP:BIO concern: In all of these articles below, Matamoros is either the main subject or significantly covered, as required by WP:GNG. Articles include information about him that is related to his work on EllieGrid Inc, his Forbes 30 under 30 nomination, his soccer career, his public speaking, and his work on InspirVive: How Mexican Immigrant Became an Entrepreneur, Tulsa World Newspaper Article, Prototyping with Matamoros, Mexican Immigrant on Forbes 30 Under 30,Forbes 30 Under 30, Ted.com Profile, Houston Dynamo Profile, TU Men's soccer Team Profile, TEDx Talk, Innovation award, Plastic News, Inspirvive
- WP:NFOOTY concern: I think that the subject passes WP:GNG without his soccer career for the reasons stated above. I added his soccer career because it was a big part of his life and seemed notable. That being said, after looking at WP:NFOOTY the subject technically passes the criteria. It says that, “Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable.” As you can see from the attached article, Abe played in the Houston Dynamo MLS Reserve league. The MLS reserve league is part of Major League Soccer (MLS), which is on the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. The attached source says he played against KC (Sporting Kansas City), and CHI (Chicago Fire), both of which are also professional MLS teams Matamoros Houston Dynamo Profile. Here are other soccer players that have Wikipedia articles and play in the USL Championship league (which is a lower level than the league Matamoros played in): Leo Ayala, Ray Saari.
- I do not believe all coverage of the subject is in connection to the company. As you can see in the sources I listed above, some articles talk about his soccer career, his TEDx Talk, his Forbes 30 Under 30 nomination, and his work on InspirVive
- You are right, he won many of the awards on behalf of the company. I have removed them from the article. However, the Forbes 30 under 30 award was awarded to him as an individual, not the company. Matamoros and his two founders received the same award, but they are not awards for the company. Please see the Forbes sources I attached. You will see that the award is given to individuals. It just so happens that all of the company’s co-founders received the award. That is why they are under, “EllieGrid co-founders”.Forbes 30 Under 30, Immigrant makes Forbes 30 under 30 list
- You are right, parts of the article do sound promotional. I have removed all of the fluff. Please let me know if there is anything else I should remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LamBiosInc (talk • contribs) 06:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Never played for Dynamo first team per this. GiantSnowman 09:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE: fails NFOOTY. Mightytotems (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly what a horrible nomination I don't think the nominator has truly done WP:BEFORE, secondly WP:NFOOTBALL is completely irrelevant here, this is simply down to does he pass WP:GNG, hell lets have a look! For one Forbes do not do profiles on nobodies, so Forbes have profiled him, then written some more about him, Forbes again, profiled by Houston business journal, not to mention Ted Talks, you actually have to be relevant to the industry to even be remotely suitable to be a speaker on Ted Talks. Here is his product on Med Starter, also on his company website there are also sources to more stuff which also adds to GNG, awards and press links. GiantSnowman and Mightytotems Seriously, fails NFooty, that was always going to happen, saddens me you haven't looked deeper into him or the article for the other stuff. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes 'profile' is about his company and says "Abe Matamoros, a Mexican immigrant, came up with the idea of a smart pillbox to help his bedridden grandfather, who had fallen behind on medications. Today, EllieGrid, which he founded during college with friends Regina Vatterott and Hieu Nguyen, expects $2 million revenue from sales in 37 countries" - that's it. Not enough to meet GNG. Plenty of people I have worked with over the years have had similar stuff in Forbes/Bloomberg etc, it does not make them notable. GiantSnowman 13:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, everything you wrote suggests potential GNG for the company he founded, not himself. Mightytotems (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mightytotems and GiantSnowmanI think there might be some confusion on what Forbe's "Forbes 30 under 30" list is. Hopefully, I can clear things up. Every year Forbes creates a list of the "brightest game changers" in the world under the age of 30. The recognition is not given to companies, it is given to individuals. The Forbes articles you see talk about the company because the company helped bring him success. While you may know people that Forbes has written articles about, there is a difference between just getting Forbes to write an article about you, and making the "Forbes 30 under 30" list. I hope this helps clear things up. Also, if you take a look at the TED talk Matamoros gave, he does not talk about his company; so, not all coverage is related to the company Abe Matamoros TED Talk. I can assure you that only notable people get asked to give TED talks and get selected to be on Forbe's 30 under 30 list. That being said, I did notice that I did not include the link to his TED talk in the original article and that I did not adequately explain what Forbes 30 under 30 was, so I can understand your concern. Now that I have better explained what Forbes 30 under 30 is and you have seen the TED talk, does it make a little more sense why I wrote the article about Matamoros? I am sorry I did not do a better job of explaining this before.
By the way, thank you for raising these concerns. I am just starting to get involved in the Wikipedia community, so I think having these discussions with you guys is great practice for me. LamBiosInc (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LamBiosInc, It was a TEDX talk not a TED talk, which means it wasn't officially sponsored by TED, there's a very large distinction between the two. Even if it was a sanctioned TED talk that isn't enough to establish someone's notability. Further, inclusion on the Forbes single 30 under 30 list might show notability, however this is a subset of that list and the coverage is on one the Forbes blog sites, there's hundreds of these handed out each year to different people. Further the 30 under list talks about the creators of the company as a whole, not Abe as an individual.
Govvy, you should read up on the distinction between TED and TEDx talks, also the fact that you think primary press links that are published by his company lends credence to notability is very troubling. This also isn't an issue of allowing the article to not fully develop. Twice the page creator moved the page to mainspace instead of going through the AfC process, in the most recent draftify a message fully explaining the issues was given including notability and sourcing concerns and that they should go through the AfC process or this might face AfD. Page creator still went ahead and published it again. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sulfurboy: Troubling? Those press links listed are clearly other companies that EllieGrid has picked up, they didn't publish them themselves, you really need to choose your words more carefully. I know the difference between Tedx and Ted! Forbes blog is still notable. Hell, I bet if people spend a good bit of time reviewing the other links found and rewrote the article then it would be a lot better. At the moment, I think the article is poor, yet from what I've seen on the internet, I feel he passes GNG, if people don't want to do their homework, then that's not my problem, there are more people editing wikipedia without regard for their actions than actually researching media links to create a decent article. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy, The ad hominems are a bit much. Forbes blog posts are not inherently notable nor are the fully reliable as there is no editorial oversight. Again, relying on what's stated on the company's site is relying on a primary source too closely related to the subject and press releases are largely irrelevant. As stated by another editor already, the company may be notable from the sources provided, but the individual is not as there is no standalone, secondary coverage of the subject independent of the company. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sulfurboy:, So LamBiosInc posts a biography online today of the 20 March 2020, does some hard work by finding some links, trying to write an article about someone to pass WP:GNG, [31], [32], [33], [34], etc. You don't even give him a chance to update the article, ask for additional links, improve the article, refine the article, you make me feel sick, that's not how a wikipedia is suppose to operate, you should give people time to improve on their work, not send it to AfD to be done with as soon as they have created it. Shame on you sir. Govvy (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: that's what userspace draft is for. Also Sulfurboy has addressed in detail above how this is not a case of not letting an article fully develop before review. Mightytotems (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:sulferboyI would like to clarify the steps I took to submit the article because I think my ignorance has resulted in you thinking I was trying to be sneaky. I am very sorry about this. I do not want to start my Wikipedia experience on the wrong foot. Please allow me to explain. When I first wrote the article in my sandbox, a pop up asked me to submit the article for review, which I did. A couple of days later I found out that as an auto-confirmed user I could just move the article from “draft” to “main” space, which I did. It is my understanding that I only did this once... Coincidently, I think that I did this within minutes of you denying my draft. Since Wikipedia allowed me to move the article, I assumed I was ok. To be honest, I was a little confused when my draft was denied, but the system allowed me to move the article to the main space. I just figured Wikipedia was ok with me improving the article while it was in the main space. I now see that just because Wikipedia allows users to move articles to the main space doesn't mean one should. Anyways, after I moved the article, my plan was to use your suggestions to keep editing the article on the main space (which I have done). I then proceeded to delete the draft, because the article in the main space had what looked like an error message saying that there were two versions of the article. I first tried to delete the draft by clearing the content in the draft, but that did not work. I then read that I could delete it by adding "db-u1" to the top, so that is what I did. I can understand why you might think I was trying to go around you, but I hope you can see that I did not have any bad intentions.
Regarding my article about "Abe Matamoros", since I have read many Wikipedia articles about people less notable than him, I thought he might be a good subject to make my first Wikipedia article on. As someone who follows soccer, there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles of soccer players whose biggest accomplishment is playing in the USL soccer league. Since this league is a lower level soccer league than the one Matamoros played in when he was on the Houston Dynamo professional reserve team, I figured his soccer history along with his success as an entrepreneur would make him notable enough. Not many people have started a multi-million dollar company, played soccer at a professional level, been on Forbes 30 under 30, and given a TEDx talk by the age of 27. From the looks of it, I think I just did a poor job of presenting the information. Would you be willing to help me with this?
Thank you,
LamBiosInc (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LamBiosInc, Playing on a reserve team or u19 club does not count as playing for a fully professional league. This has already been pointed out. Also, just because other articles exist doesn't mean this one should WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a valid argument here. Tons of people have started multi-million dollar companies and not all of them are notable. There have been about 50,000 TEDx talks, not all people who give one are notable. Forbes (and blog affiliates) give 600+ "30 under 30" awards each year, and again, it's about the people at that company not just Abe himself. If this person was truly notable then there would be plenty of reliable, secondary coverage of the individual separate from his involvement with the company. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:sulferboy There is a big difference between the "Professional reserve team" and a U19 club team. The professional reserve team is made up of the professional MLS soccer players that for some reason did not get called up to play with the first team that week. This means that Matamoros was playing with professional MLS players on a professional team at the age of 17. Please take a look at the roster attached:Houston Dynamo Reserve Team. As you can see on the roster, Abe was playing with professional soccer players (all who have a wikipedia page). In short, the MLS reserve league is a professional League and is a higher level than other leagues like the USL (which have most of their player on wikipedia). So, even though he did not play a first-team game, according to WP:NFOOTY, he just has to have played in a professional league. LamBiosInc (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LamBiosInc, I understand the difference between the two, and neither count under WP:NFOOTY standards. And no, just being part of of a professional organization is not the guideline outlined in the WP:NFOOTY, they need to make a start in a competitive game or come on as a substitute. Who has or hasn't played with teammate wise also has no bearing on his notability and as already outlined WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a credible argument. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:sulferboyI probably should have mentioned this since the beginning, but he did do both of those things you mentioned. He started in a competitive professional game and came on as a substitute in a competitive professional game. The attached link shows evidence that he started a game against the Chicago fire on 4/24/2011, and came on as a substitute against Sporting Kansas City on 4/11/11Proof of participation in professional games. This link also shows that the two games were official league games Dynamo Reserve Team Games. I am sorry I did not include these two games in the article from the beginning. Since his involvement in these two games show that he does comply with WP:NFOOTY, should I include them in the article? Thanks, LamBiosInc (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LamBiosInc, Again, reserves matches do not count. Not sure how else to get this message across. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:sulferboy Nowhere does it say that Reserve Professional League games do not count. The reserve league is a professional league that is part of the MLS, and WP:NFOOTY just says it has to be a professional league. It does not say it has to be the highest level league in the country. Do you have evidence to show that it is not a professional league? In fact, the MLS reserve league recently merged with USL pro league which according to, list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football is also a notable league.LamBiosInc (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about semi-pro soccer player and entrepreneur which doesn't satisfy any of our notability guidelines. He never played in a fully-pro league (reserves matches are not MLS league matches), and while the Medium.com blogpost/article is non-routine coverage, it is primarily about his business/product. If there was more in-depth coverage, I might think WP:GNG could be satisfied, but the Forbes and Houston Chronicle articles are not close (and mostly about his business/product). Jogurney (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:Jogurney Do you have evidence to back the claim that the MLS reserve league is not a professional league? This is simply not true. It is indeed a professional league. That is why it recently merged with USL pro which is another professional league that is also recognized as a notable league by, list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. Nearly every USL Pro player and every reserve league player has a Wikipedia profile, so there is a lot of precedence. Thank you, LamBiosInc (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LamBiosInc, The games the player played in were before the merger making this point largely moot. The Wikipedia Project for Football actually has quite an exhaustive list of now defunct leagues that they have deemed as once fully professional and the MLS Reserves isn't one of them. Considering their extensive involvement with the project, Jogurney may be the most qualified out of any of us to know what leagues qualify under WP:FOOTY guidelines, so deference may be prudent here. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LamBiosInc, if you believe the MLS Reserve League was a fully-pro league in 2011, you'll need to provide some evidence of that. It is my understanding that unpaid academy players participated which is enough for it not to be "fully-pro" (since the idea of "fully-pro" is the players make a living playing football as opposed to part-time or amateur players who have other work to make their livings). I'm highly skeptical that this league was fully-pro, but if you have a source indicating otherwise, please share it. All the best. Jogurney (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jogurney Thank you for being open to new evidence. The MLS reserve league was considered "fully-pro" in the same way the USL Championship league is considered "fully-pro". Here is what I mean by that. As you may know, the USL is one of the leagues that Wikipedia considers "fully-pro" according to, list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. What is important to note is that the USL is considered "fully-pro", even though academy players that are not getting paid are on the roster. Here is an article for reference: USL Academy contract. The USL is still considered "fully-pro", because the majority of the team is on a paid contract and a handful of players are on an academy contract. The reason academy players are not paid, is so that they do not loose their college eligibility. The MLS reserves are exactly the same. The majority of the players are on a professional contract, and they put a handful of academy players on an academy contract. Attached is a roster of the team where you can see that nearly all the players are professional MLS players and only a handful are on an academy contract Dynamo Reserve Team Roster. I believe that WP:FOOTY mentions, "Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above", specifically for the situation at hand. Matamoros was younger, but since he started and "played" for the team, he fits the criteria stated in WP:FOOTY. I guess what I am trying to say is that, if the USL Championship league is considered "fully-pro", than the MLS reserve league has to be considered "fully-pro" because they have the same structure regarding academy players. In addition to this, the fact that MLS reserve teams are playing in the USL Championship, should go to show that reserve teams are considered professional teams even though they have academy players. For reference Sporting Kansas City II is another example of a reserve team that is in USL Championship. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you, LamBiosInc (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't relevant that the MLS Reserve League clubs eventually joined the USL Championship. What is relevant is whether the MLS Reserve League was fully professional when Matamoros was playing (in 2011). Please share some evidence of that. Jogurney (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The evidence presented proves that Matamoros fits the WP:FOOTY criteria. The evidence shows that Matamoros "played" in a professional league that is run and sanctioned by the MLS, a league that is in, list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. I looked into this further and learned that, at the time in question, the reserve team was not a separate team from the first team. The reserve team was for first team players that did not get much playing time with the first team that week. If you look at each professional player on the reserve team roster, they were all on MLS first team contracts (not on any sort of semi-pro contract). In fact, 6 of the players on the reserve team roster were first team national team players (Will Bruin, Je-Vaughn Watson, Bobby Boswell, Eddie Robinson, Jermaine Taylor, Colin Clark). Players of this caliber would not and could not be playing in a non-professional league while they are on an MLS first team professional contract. The evidence also shows that other leagues such as the USL championship are considered “fully-pro”, even though they have players on “academy contracts”. Lastly, I believe someone who obviously played soccer at a professional level and is on the Forbes 30 under 30 list for something completely separate (like inventing a medical device and starting a successful company around it) is definately notable; but, I know that is just my opinion and not as clear cut as the argument specifically regarding his soccer career. Olympian100 (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above (especially Jogurney's reasoning) --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BlameRuiner, Jogurney asked LamBiosInc to provide evidence to back his claim that the MLS reserve league is a fully professional league and LamBiosInc did just that. Did you take a look at the evidence? If so, how can you say the USL championship is a fully professional league and The MLS reserve League is not?Olympian100 (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He has not yet done so, Olympian/LamBiosInc. Jogurney (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jogurney Can you please explain why the USL championship league should be considered "fully-pro" and the MLS reserve league should not be considered "fully-pro"? Either both leagues are "fully-pro" or neither are "fully-pro". If neither are "fully-pro", than that means that the hundreds of USL championship and MLS reserve team players that have a Wikipedia article should have their article taken down (which is obviously rediculous). I have presented my case with ample evidence. Meanwhile, others have disagreed with me without providing any evidence or counter arguements. If you could please take another look at the evidence I put together and answer my question with evidence, or atleast a counter argument, I would appreciate it.
Matamoros was one of eight academy players on the 2011 squad. In short, he was not a paid professional player, and any club (if you consider the reserves a "club") with 8 academy players on it is not a full-time professional outfit. It doesn't help to say some full-time players participated in the club, or that other leagues listed as WP:FPL use academy players too (maybe those should be removed). We've never treated an academy player as playing in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jogurney The WP:FOOTY guidelines do not say anything about having to be a paid professional or about not allowing academy players. Saying that you have never treated an academy player as playing in a fully-pro league does not seem like a valid argument. That could be because 99.9% of all academy players have never played in professional games like Matamoros, and the ones that have, did not have a wikipedia articles written about them. That being said, I think that we should stick to the guidlines that have been set and not use other guidlines. The guidlines state that notable players are, "Players that have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues". So, the million dollar question is, "Should an MLS reserve team be considered "fully-pro", or not?" If an MLS reserve team is considered "fully-pro", Matatmoros fits the WP:FOOTY guidlines. If it is not considered fully-pro, Matamoros does not fit the WP:FOOTY guidlines. Considering the structure with academy contracts, I completely understand why you think it should not be considered "fully-pro". I do not agree, but I understand. However, according to the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football, all MLS reserve teams are considered "fully-pro" (even with academy players), because they play in the USL Championship league. According to the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football, all MLS reserve teams were also considered "fully-pro" in 2011, because they were in the MLS league. The list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football does not destinguish between "MLS reserve league" and "MLS first team league", because they were considered the same league back then (I explained this when I mentioned that the reserve team pro players were also first team players). If you believe that the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football is wrong, you would be going against precedent, so the burden of proof should be on you. Now, you may or may not be right about the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football being wrong; however, don't you think you should appeal the guidlines and have them changed before deleting an article that currently fits the criteria?LamBiosInc (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. The MLS Reserve League is not included in the fully-pro leagues at WP:FPL. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, so I kindly suggest taking your view to that Talk page since it's just cluttering this discussion (and not advancing your argument). Jogurney (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jogurney Did you read what I said? The MLS reserve league is not distinguished from the MLS first team league on the WP:FPL because they are both part of the “MLS”, which is the first American league on the list. You have not provided any evidence to prove otherwise. Could you please do that? Just because you say something is wrong, does not mean it is wrong. You should provide evidence like you are asking me to do. Wikipedia differentiates between “EFL Championship”, “EFL League one” and “EFL league two”, but if it were to just say “EFL” you would not assume it is just referring to “EFL Championship”. However, that is exactly what you are doing. The WP:FPL says the MLS is considered fully professional. The MLS reserve league is part of the MLS, so according to WP:FPL the MLS reserve league is considered fully professional. Here is evidence that the MLS reserve league was part of the MLS.
1. The MLS reserve league was run and sanctioned by the MLS as a professional league MLS Reserve League
2. MLS reserve league would not be able to use the “MLS” trademark if it was not part of the MLS
3. All MLS reserve league players (even academy players) were on MLS contracts Houston Dynamo Reserves
Can you please provide evidence to show that the MLS reserve league was not part of the MLS? If you just do this one thing, I will leave the argument alone.

Jogurney I found new evidence that might be of interest to you. Don't worry, it has nothing to do with the MLS. According to WP:NCOLLATH , "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples include players who have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport).” According to Template:College Football Awards the offensive Player of the year for the American Conference tournament is considered a national award in football. Matamoros won offensive MVP of the American Conference tournament for soccer. I have included sources and a video clip from the TV interview that took place when he won the award. LamBiosInc maybe if did a little more research on his college career you would not have had to go through all this... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AytDHj_4e-8 https://tulsahurricane.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster/abe-matamoros/2397 https://www.houstondynamo.com/es/post/2014/11/17/dynamo-academy-alumni-take-home-conference-honors-and-gear-ncaa-tournament Olympian100 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are !voting twice, but you are misreading COLLATH, and Matamoros didn't win a "national award." Jogurney (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jogurney, you are once again denying someones claims without evidence or any sort of argument. Why do you say that the award for offensive player of the year for the American conference is not a national award? The WP:NCOLLATH clearly states that, "awards such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards, or the equivalent in another sport” are considered national awards. If you go into Template:College Football Awards it clearly states that American Athletic Conference football individual awards are national awards.LamBiosInc (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LamBiosInc, LamBiosInc, to avoid confusion you should stop commenting with multiple accounts. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For what it’s worth, I was looking for information on Abe Matamoros and found what I needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B050:BC61:5427:7CA5:4176:5B0E (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this discussion is way out of hand. If we really want to pursue this MLR Reserve League case, then we should draftify this player for now, vote for this league on WT:FPL, and then get back here again. MLS Reserve, MLS proper and USL Championship are not the same leagues, so they should be evaluated separately. PS And I don't think this anonymous vote above me counts, does it? --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BlameRuiner, Yeah, that vote and the Olympian vote are almost certainly LamBiosInc. It's very unlikely that two separate people would decide to participate in wikipedia for the first time by voting on a relatively obscure AfD. I don't think it's fooling anyone. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BlameRuiner and Sulfurboy I have no problem if the leagues on WT:FPL are reviewed as suggested. I think that is a good idea. That being said, if reviewing the leagues is going to drag things out even more, why don't we just pursue so the WP:NCOLLATH case? I think that case is more clear. Matamoros won a national award that is listed in the American Athletic Conference football individual awards. Have you guys had a chance to look at that? If so, I would love to get your thoughts. Lastly, the people that have voted "keep" are not me. If there is a way to prove that, please let me know and I will take the steps necessary to do that.Thanks, LamBiosInc (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LamBiosInc, Dude you're linking to a list of American football awards, not association football. Further, the award was for a specific tournament not just a season long award. There's literally thousands of people each year awarded tournament MVP awards across college sports. Please stop pinging me with this nonsense. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, I will not ping you anymore as requested, but you made a statement that is incorrect. In college soccer, the season is considered a "tournament", so it is a season long award. Every conference game played throughout the conference season leads up to the conference championship game, which is referred to in the TV Interview I attached. Also, as mentioned in the TV interview, winning the conference tournamaent allowed his team to move on to the post-season which is called the "NCAA tournament" (notice it also has the word "tournament" in it). You do not move on to the post season by winning a "specfic tournement", you move on to the post season by doing well in the season. The reason I am linking the American Athletic Conference football individual awards to the award Matamoros recieved is because WP:NCOLLATH states "awards such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards, OR THE EQUIVALENT IN OTHER SPORTS", are considered national awards.LamBiosInc (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, with there being no independent significant coverage of him and given he played in a league that does not meet the NFOOOTY standards, regardless of what some people are attempting to claim. The Keep votes given are quite frankly verging on ridiculous at this stage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:50, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De Consularis[edit]

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

No evidence this organization passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Prod has been declined, as was addition of notability tag, in exchange for adding some references this initially unreferenced article. I do appreciate help finding Dutch sources, as references in English for this NGO seem not to exist. Unfortunately, the quality of sources added do not seem very impressive, so I think we need a further discussion here. As far I am able to tell through Google Translate, the sources found so far are: 1) [35] this seems like a reprint/rewrite of a press release in a now-defunct regional paper/online portal. Due to reading like a press release, I have serious concerns whether this source is truly reliable and independent 2) [36] is a marketing trade journal, and per NORG/RS trade journals are often problematic sources (too often they are "pay us to advertise your company") types of coverage. The article is also not in-depth about the NGO, it seems to be about the general concept of 'commissioner', and mentions the NGO near the end for about a single sentence. 3) [37] I cannot judge the source itself, "BC" is too generic term for me to find out much about the platform, it may be a reliable large newspaper, or another niche trade journal, I have no opinion. But the coverage again is not in-depth. Ths time the NGO gets two paragraphs near the bottom, but it is just three sentences or so and then a large quote from the NGO's director. 4) Again, no comments on the source (deondernemer), I can't find out much about the outlet. The coverage is similar to the previous source, a paragraph or so near the bottom, significantly based on the quotation from the NG's director. So again, not in-depth and mostly WP:INTERVIEW. As such, I think that this NGO fails NORG, and this is just a WP:YELLOWPAGES like entry created for promotional reasons (stub creator User:Arcarius has been blocked as a sock...). But if you think better sources exist and you want to try to rescue this, go ahead, let's discuss this. But please, let's focus on the article, and avoid WP:NPAs. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. With the full disclosure that I am a unilingual American, the sources I find from a Google Search are only their website, their article, and a bunch of unrelated stuff. The nom provides me with further confidence that this does not pass NORG or the GNG. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 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) 09:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudvpn[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:N. I have looked for other sites mentioning the project, but could not find much other than the site distributing the software. I would prefer to do a merge instead of deleting information, but I can't currently find a good option to merge to. Maybe a new article would be a good idea. Streepjescode (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Outline technical description of software that only seems to have existed for a few months. Mccapra (talk) 05:19, 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. MBisanz talk 03:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Khan (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:NARTIST. Störm (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject clearly fails notability test, there needs to be signficant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject per WP:GNG. The only independent sources here is the interview, and that's primary. Tushar.ghone (talk) 13:37, 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) 20:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hewitt Place, Wyoming[edit]

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

Another single building on old topos of which no trace remains that I can see. Searching produces the usual clickbait, an address in the Bronx, another somewhere else, and nothing beyond that; searching for "Hewitt Ranch" was not an improvement. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Envers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has been clearly written as a WP:PROMO breaching the WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:15, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Place, Wyoming[edit]

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

Another "Place" out west, and you know what that probably means: someone's ranch. In this case older topos show a single building here, and it may appear, abandoned, in the midst of some trees on GMaps. Searching produces a lot of juxtapositions, even if I substitute "ranch" for "place", but nothing about this spot other than clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 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 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 03:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghasri Sinha[edit]

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

Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The article has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The subject might meet WP:GNG (I can't read the non-English sources, so I really don't know), but her film work doesn't appear significant enough to scale WP:NACTOR. Her role in the new soap opera, Ki Kore Bolbo Tomay, may lead to notability, but the article has been created a little prematurely, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:21, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 1)[edit]

List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (British series 19) housemates and all other series which were recently deleted I'm nominating all the list of housemates in Canadian series for the same reasons. Firstly pretty much every contestant is non notable, even with the level of sourcing, still fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. Secondly, the amalgamated list, without all of the profiling, can be found under List of Big Brother Canada houseguests and links to the very few notable names can be accessed from there. Ajf773 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is time we stopped allowing lists as end runs around normal notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments in the previous 3 AfDs. Anything that is needed can be found in the specific season articles and in the general list of houseguests article. --Gonnym (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE and the article also suffers from WP:OR issues. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:20, 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. The articles on the current disease and the virus do not use the phrase "Chinese virus" at all, so would make poor redirect targets. The article's on Donald Trump's use of the phrase do include the term, but as pointed out are not likely to be the topic sought either. If content about the nomenclature is added to COVID-19, no prejudice in this close for redirecting there then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese virus[edit]

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

Per WP:ATP. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Njzjz (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A similar discussion is taking place over whether the term should be included in the main Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 article over at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Repeated_addition_of_"China_Virus" Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Comment there are several viruses named "China virus", listed at List of virus species; there are several more viruses that are named after places in China, so "Chinese virus" would be an appropriate search term for all these viruses. If this is deleted, then it should redirect to either List of virus species or List of virus taxa. But that already excludes the use of the U.S. President, whom is using "Chinese virus" to refer to the COVID-19 virus. Thus, if you ignore Trump's personal terminology, there is still actual use of this as an actual virus name (that is not COVID-19 related, and not human-virus-related either). -- 67.70.32.186 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019: The term "Chinese virus" is being used widely in the media to refer to COVID-19 (because Trump is using the term). It is likely that some readers will hear the term and not know (or care) about whether it's an appropriate way to describe COVID-19 — and search for information about the current pandemic using "Chinese virus". Those readers should be directed to the COVID-19 information that they're looking for. It's not often that an AfD discussion about a disambiguation page could actually affect whether someone can find life-saving information, but these are interesting times. We should direct those readers to the information that they need. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed my vote to Redirect, which more clearly expresses my opinion. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not censored. This does not seem to meet any criteria for deletion, and the term is used by many across the world, including the United States president. Removing would be unencyclopedic. 2600:1010:B15D:5299:ED8B:CD7:4EBA:38D1 (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious IP-sock. No real first-time user goes to an AfD to argue about criteria for deletion. Jeppiz (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere, possibly to Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States#Donald Trump presidency. The entries from List of virus species are "China virus"es, and they're partial matches to boot. SARS wasn't called the "Chinese virus", other than as a simple adjective-noun pairing. Would you list Lionel Messi in Argentine footballer? That just leaves COVID-19, and that minor Trump idiocy isn't even mentioned in that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of viruses also contains viruses named after places in China, so also Chinese viruses. As search terms, the neutral search would lead to the list of viruses for both "China" and "Chinese" as good and valid search term redirects, while the recentism search would lead to a COVID-19 topic (the pandemic, the disease or the virus articles) -- 67.70.32.186 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--on ngram viewer the term dates back to 1959. Most use is found starting in 1984. It does not appear to be a fad term. I might add that the Spanish flu page is currently under discussion about moving it to a non-xenophobic name. Maybe we should wait and see what they do and do the same for consistency? It seems undesirable to say Chinese virus is xenophobic but Spanish flu is okay, or Spanish flu is xenophobic and Chinese virus is okay. I can live with both options, as long as you don't change Lutheran antigen system to Separated brethren antigen system.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WHO said it is racist, and all regions should not to use this term. It also applies to WP:R: "the redirect is offensive or abusive". So I think this redirect should be deleted.--Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 07:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not violate WP:ATP because it is not an attack page; it does not disparage the viruses and the tone of the page is about as neutral as one could make it. Having a disambiguation page is consistent with WP:DPAGE because "Chinese virus" could refer to past flus associated with China, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, the 2019-20 coronavirus pandemic, or the virus that causes mosaic disease in plants. While SARS-CoV-2 would likely be the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, it is wise to avoid recentism given that the pandemic is a major news item at the moment, so it makes more sense to have it as a disambiguation page instead of a direct redirect to SARS-CoV-2 that adds a hatnote pointing users to Clerodendrum golden mosaic China virus. Additionally, the fact that 13 viruses include the name "China" in list of virus species would make it implausible to hatnote and instead, the list is linked in the disambiguation page. Zach Vega (<>talk to me) 09:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Donald Trump use this term to mean coronavirus.[1]
--Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  1. Donald Trump and British Columbia newspaper The_Province have used the name “Chinese virus” before[2]. And some similar names, such as “Wuhan virus”, “Chinese Coronavirus”, has been used by Mike Pompeo and Fox News host respectively[3][4]. Hence, “Chinese virus” and these similar names have been used widely.
  2. Donald Trump said that “It’s not racist at all”[5]. China's government reject US and said that it is “stigmatization"[6]. WHO official warns against calling it 'Chinese virus' and says 'there is no blame in this'[7]. Hence, “Chinese virus” has a wide dispute.
  3. In conclusion, “Chinese virus” and these similar name have been used widely. And “Chinese virus' has a wide dispute. Hence, we should be based on WP:NPOV to treat “Chinese virus” and these similar names, and WP:ATP should not be the deletion reason. Thank you. --SCP-2000 13:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, in this case, the view of the World Health Organization should be regarded as an opinion, and should not be regarded as a fact. --SCP-2000 13:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Clarityfiend. None of the virus species mentioned on the list of virus species are ever referred to as simply “Chinese virus”. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to some page to which has been added a sourced statement that this is Donald Trump's terminology: either Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, to which Wuhan Virus already leads (the third paragraph of the lead discusses nomenclature, and could almost form a new section, especially with this addition?), or Misinformation_related_to_the_2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#United_States_2 (to clarify, the hierarchy of headings has this as a subsection of "Misinformation by governments"). Either way, the rd needs to be explained by showing the source of this name. PamD 14:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge with China flu. TJRC (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019. It is not a separate concept. It refers to the coronavirus that originated in China. Natureium (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019 as per WP:OTHERNAMES. The virus originated in China (despite propaganda from the Chinese government that states otherwise [38]), so this is actually an accurate name. The nominator is misguided as this has zero elements of an attack page.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an attack page, unless Spanish flu is an attack page. Primary topic seems to be the current coronavirus, so I recommend a redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. I think the media has overblown this one because, although I'm against racism, it's not incorrect to call a virus that originated in China, a "Chinese virus". buidhe 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This is a name applied to the present COVID-19. Normally we do not require sources for disambiguation, but in this case, I would want to see sources about these other conditions because I am unclear if anyone ever called them "Chinese virus". I have no objection to anyone creating a page for "viruses originating in China", if one does not otherwise exist. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Donald Trump. It os not an accurate name for the virus, not used by any expert or WHO, nor is it in common use. It's use by a demagogue is more relevant for the article of said demagogue than for any virus. And yes, obviously WP:ATP applies. Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And you calling President Trump a demagogue obviously is not an attack.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019 Racial views of Donald Trump because the criticisms relate to his racial motives and xenophobic base. Trump just uses the slur to appeal to his xenophobic base. It doesn't deserve an article. Someone is bound to use it as a search term, so make a redirect out of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Racial views of Donald Trump. Guettarda (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note as I said below, "a Google News search for "Chinese virus" gives me 8.4 million hits, while "Chinese virus" -Trump gives me fewer than 78k hits". This is overwhelmingly a Trumpian slur. No one looking for it is looking for the top, though a few of them might be looking for Wikipedia to validate their bigotry. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a slur. The President of the United States receiving wide coverage for using it, has nothing to do with what people are using the word for. No one searching for the term on Wikipedia is looking for information on the United States President. It's a phrase that refers to a virus. They're looking for information on that virus. He did not invent it, and many people used it before him. Redirecting it to anything related to Trump would be ridiculous. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not direct to anything about Donald Trump. The term was used before the United States president, is currently used by tens of millions now who are not Trump (including United States members of Congress, Secretary of States, news anchors), and when people search the term they are not looking for information about him. They are looking for information about a virus. I also do not recommend redirecting to SARS-CoV-2 as historically together it refers to more than just one virus, however perhaps we can emphasize it by having SARS-CoV-2 toward the top in the disambiguation. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say above, I think this is best merged with and redirected to the overlapping disambiguation page Chinese flu; I don't have a strong opinion about which should be the primary name and which should be the redirect.
But I'm posting again to reiterate what Symphony Regalia says above. Under no circumstance should this redirect to anything related to Trump. I am no fan of Trump, but such a targeting would be a huge disservice to Wikipedia readers. Do any of you who are posting such suggestions really believe that a reader is searching on "Chinese virus" so they can read about Trump? Really? No. They're obviously trying to be educated about a virus.
Reasonable minds can vary on what virus-related target this should go to, but by no means should this be used as a vehicle to promote a political point of view. And I say that as someone who shares that point of view: full disclosure, I think Trump is a venal idiot. But that should not be reflected in the outcome of this discussion.
Come on. We're better than this. TJRC (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TJRC: Do you have any sources to support this? As far as I can tell, this is just another Trumpian slur. While I know that the Google test is less that ideal, a Google News search for "Chinese virus" gives me 8.4 million hits, while "Chinese virus" -Trump gives me fewer than 78k hits. Guettarda (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you really believe readers searching on "Chinese virus" are looking for information on Trump, and not for information on the current pandemic? Really? Really? That's what they're seeking information on?
I don't know what you mean by "sources" in determining where a redirect goes. The idea is to get readers to the material they're looking for. The issue is not how often the term occurs ion media relating to Trump; it's what the readers using the term are looking for.
I understand that most people who hear and use the phrase "Chinese virus" are likely Trump fans, and can appreciate the the schadenfreude in sending them to an article on Trump instead of what they're looking for. But is that really what you want to use Wikipedia for? TJRC (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TJRC:I'm quite confidence that people searching for "Chinese virus" when they're trying to learn about Covid-19, just like people searching for "n*..." aren't actually looking for articles about black people. I don't believe that anyone is actually that stupid. But guess what - I'm basing my response here on policy, not on my faith in humanity. As for the rest of it? Schadenfreude? You've been here long enough to know that WP:NPA is policy. You're crossing a line with your insults. Please stop. Guettarda (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All else aside, if you're trying to make a moral argument, there are two sides at play. Even if you're right, even if some people come here looking for Covid-19, the slur you're saying we should normalise is rooted in the kind of hateful bigotry that leaves us with this: List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I don't believe that's your aim, but the logical consequence of having Wikipedia validate this slur is more racist and xenophobic attacks. Normalising this slur puts people's lives at risk. Guettarda (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
I also want to point out that "chinese" is not a race it is a nationality, and "xenophobic" as a term is also largely useless in a global context (English Wikipedia is used in nearly every country on earth), so determining whether something "validates" xenophobia or not is also an exercise in futility. For example, and I do not mean to be flippant, China is perhaps one of the most xenophobic places on earth both as a matter of culture and national policy. Does Wikipedia having on article on China validate xenophobia? Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the term "Chinese virus" even used to any significant extent outside the United States? In the context in which it is used, by right-wing American politicians, it is a xenophobic term. But even more to the point, "Chinese virus" is simply not a widely used name for SARS-CoV-2. It is widely called either by the name of the disease, "CoVID-19," or by the name of the virus, "SARS-CoV-2," or by the family the virus belongs to, "Coronavirus." -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the name is not offensive or racist. However I do think the page is pretty useless, also China virus should likely redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or perhaps the disese or pandemic page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to one of the articles related to the virus or pandemic. The term has in fact been widely used (not just by Trump) or discussed, so regardless of whether some see it as offensive towards China, there is no reason not to keep this as a disambiguation page or redirect (WP:NOTCENSORED). More than 500 people searched for this term on the English Wikipedia the day before the disambiguation page was nominated for deletion. We don't delete the article on the Spanish flu either. --Tataral (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' or redirect to COVID-19 or another article related to the virus. WP:ATP does not apply here; the tone of the dab page is as neutral as any other, and wikipedia is not censored. This term has received widespread coverage by reliable sources. Symphony Regalia makes a good point; Wikipedia has always contained content that some people have found offensive, and, as much as I fully understand it if you hate Trump, a redirect or dab page isn't xenophobic. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just checked French disease and it is a redirect to syphilis. If that isn't xenophobic, I don't know what is, especially since historically it originated in the Americas and from what I understand it came to Europe with explorers from a different country, not France. Yet the term "French disease" is common in historical literature, so to delete it would possibly be worse than keeping it, because students will encounter it in source documents or fictional literature of the past and not know what it is. Having the redirect is helpful for educating people, and being non-xenophobic would lead to ignorance. Also, as I stated in my previous comment, the term "Chinese virus" has been received consistent usage in English literature since 1984. It occurred to me that since the great firewall blocks wikipedia, the only Chinese we risk offending are expats, those on VPNs, and those in Taiwan and maybe Hong Kong/Macau. Unfortunately, the expats are the ones most vulnerable to xenophobia, especially now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to COVID-19, regardless of whether it's offensive or not, the term is used to refer to this current pandemic originating from China. --Local hero talk 17:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This should be used as a redirect due to the term's appearance in reliable sources. This is not an attack page because of that fact. It could be considered offensive (I don't think it is), but we don't remove material just because it may be objectionable. Also, consider the above comments about Spanish flu and French disease, neither of which are proper names for the infection but we still have the pages. funplussmart (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either Coronavirus disease 2019 or Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 per Epiphyllumlover's logic. Trump uses it as a slur, but that doesn't keep it from being useful in directing readers appropriately. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a disambiguation page, or Redirect to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. This is a very likely search term, and WP is not censored. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- there is a discussion on Talk:Chinese_virus about whether it is appropriate to indicate the potential pejorative sense on the existing disambiguation page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. It is obviously intended and used as a xenophobic slur. --MaeseLeon (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. Just like people searching for the Spanish flu are looking for information about the Spanish flu and not about anti-Spanish sentiment, people searching for this term are most likely looking for information about the pandemic/virus, not about anti-China sentiment. It's more helpful to our readers to explain the term and its use in an article about the pandemic, and redirect the term there. --Tataral (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article as it is, with the proper name, Chinese Virus, after the corrupt, communist government that allowed it to infect the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:200:3A50:C9BF:6358:C9E8:CB34 (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As disambiguation page. Do not redirect, instead have separate links to the associated usages. Look, ‘China virus’ or ‘Chinese virus’ is at least ALSO an informal phrasing, including for SARS in 2003. It has recently been used in BBC and , in Bloomberg, in Reuters, in Nature, and others. This month it is also part of China wanting reasonably to distance the association and of other nations to use in framing border closures. It is also this week or so become associated to claims of racism, and MULTIPLE article links mentioned here. None of these are so dominant as to justify it being a redirect and shutting off the other links, and it would be helpful to lead readers to the associated links. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unfortunately, the term is being widely used for the current virus, but it is also used for other viruses so it should be kept. A discussion is going on on over at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Careless talk costs lives about whether the term should be used in the main article, but it has relatively few contributors so I hope other will join so we can reach consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Washington Post:
    Chinese coronavirus infections, death toll soar as fifth case is confirmed in U.S.[8]
    and per The Guardian:
    China virus: ten cities locked down and Beijing festivities scrapped[9]
    and per the France 24:
    China virus death toll rises to 42, more than 1,400 infected worldwide[10]
    and per the BBC:
    China coronavirus: Death toll rises as disease spreads[11]
    Last I heard, we in Wikipedia go by the WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • XavierItzm, all of your sources are talking about the course of the disease in China. You may have misunderstood the discussion. There is no question that the virus originated in China, but Trump has substituted the word "corona" with "China" when he says "China virus" or "Chinese virus". Both terms have been widely criticized as being racist, and there has been a strong uptick in racist attacks on Chinese and other Asian people in the United States. His words have very unfortunate consequences, much to the joy of his xenophobic supporters. -- Valjean (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources refer to a "China virus." I don't see how The Guardian can use the phrase "China virus" and if some people use it is bad and if other people use it is good. By the way, I, for one, do not like French food. What kind of mental gymnastics would it take to say I have anything against France, a country I love, have lived in, and will return to literally a handful of days after it reopens its borders? XavierItzm (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierItzm: The latest source in your list is from 27 January, barely a month after the discovery of the virus. Back then, the virus was not yet known to have spread widely outside China. I don't see any sources nowadays referring to the "Chinese virus" or "China virus," except when quoting Trump or other right-wing political figures in the United States. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS lose no validity as time goes by. The 9/11 Wikipedia entry, for example, includes many citations from September 2001. Are you seriously proposing those reliable sources be deleted because they were written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? XavierItzm (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they can lose validity. The references you're citing are all from the very early days of reporting on the virus, before it even had a name, and when the virus was largely confined to China. The virus now has a name, and it's not confined to China. In fact, China is now one of the less-affected areas of the world at the moment. I haven't seen any publication refer to "China virus" or "Chinese virus" in months now, except to quote Trump or other right-wing American politicians. "China virus" is not a name for SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you really believe that, you need a new Wikipedia policy stating that WP:RS cease to have validity by your own personal deadlines, and get on deleting all the September 2001 sources in the 9/11 article. Once the policy is in place, then we can have this conversation again. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The policy already exists, and is called WP:RS AGE. It specifically mentions changing vocabulary. All the sources you listed above are from 27 January or earlier. The disease was only named on 11 February 2020: [39]. Early reports didn't have any name to call the virus, because no name existed back then - it was only discovered in late December 2019, and only began to be covered by Western press in January 2020.
I'd also like to point out that you're misreading some of your sources. The France24 headline was "China virus death toll rises to 42 [...]" This is shorthand for "Death toll in China rises to 42," not "Death toll from the China virus rises to 42." The Washington Post said that "Chinese coronavirus infections, death toll soar." They're discussing the number of coronavirus infections in China, not the number of infections with "Chinese coronavirus." Remember that back at this early date, the virus had no name and almost all known cases were in China. Both facts have now changed - the virus has a name and the vast majority of cases are outside China. Nowadays, "China virus" or "Chinese virus" is a political slogan, not a widely used name for SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policies are WP:COMMONNAME, and/or WP:POVNAME. WP:RS AGE clearly says: "Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing." Please avoid WP:RECENCY. This is why the 9/11 articles have so many sources from the earliest days. Same principles apply here. XavierItzm (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS AGE also says, "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." Every source you've cited comes from the very early days of reporting on the virus, before it even had a name. It has a name now, and that name is not "Chinese virus."
I see no risk of WP:RECENCY in using the names "CoVID-19" and "SARS-CoV-2," unless you think that the world is about to adopt the phrases that Trump and his political allies have been insisting on using, "Chinese virus," "China virus," etc. "Chinese virus" is simply not the common name that the virus is known by. Who, outside of Trump and a few other right-wing political figures in the US, do you see using this phrase? -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. I agree 100% with Thucydides411. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only current references to "Chinese virus" or "China virus" that I've seen are quotes from Trump and other right-wing politicians in the United States. This is not the common name for SARS-CoV-2. The only appropriate subject for an article titled "China virus" or "Chinese virus" would be the use of that term by American politicians, not the virus itself. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yay, must have missed The Guardian: China virus: ten cities locked down and Beijing festivities scrapped[12] and similar sources cited above. XavierItzm (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said "current references." January 23rd is not current, especially in the context of SARS-CoV-2. You know that I'm aware of this reference, because I responded to you above, so I'd appreciate a bit less sarcasm and a bit more good faith. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--I've attempted to address some of the pro-delete voters' concerns on the disambig page, feel free to check it out or join the discussion on the talk page there.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent additions and certainly should remove any concerns. It is so rare to see so much animus towards deleting a mere disambig page. XavierItzm (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-chinese-virus-notes/
  2. ^ McDONALD, By JOE. "Province at China virus's center lets some companies reopen". WJAX. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  3. ^ Rogers, Katie (2020-03-10). "Politicians' Use of 'Wuhan Virus' Starts a Debate Health Experts Wanted to Avoid". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  4. ^ "Fox News host Tucker Carlson begins referring to 'Chinese coronavirus'". The Independent. 2020-03-10. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  5. ^ Mangan, Dan (2020-03-18). "Trump defends calling coronavirus 'Chinese virus' — 'it's not racist at all'". CNBC. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  6. ^ 陈蓓. "China rejects US' virus stigma - Chinadaily.com.cn". www.chinadaily.com.cn. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  7. ^ Gstalter, Morgan (2020-03-19). "WHO official warns against calling it 'Chinese virus,' says 'there is no blame in this'". TheHill. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  8. ^ "Chinese coronavirus infections, death toll soar as fifth case is confirmed in U.S." The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 March 2020. {{cite news}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)
  9. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/coronavirus-panic-spreads-in-china-with-three-cities-in-lockdown
  10. ^ https://www.france24.com/en/20200125-china-virus-death-toll-rises-to-41-more-than-1-300-infected-worldwide
  11. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-51245680
  12. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/coronavirus-panic-spreads-in-china-with-three-cities-in-lockdown
  • Keep - the inaccuracy and partisan nature of "China virus" is no different to another disambiguation page, Muslim ban. The links on that page are 1) A ban on all citizens from some countries on entering the US, regardless of religion 2) A ban on a legal system, which is also banned by some Muslims 3 & 4) Bans on face covering regardless of religion, including those worn by a minority of Muslim women. The deletion discussion on the redirect of "Muslim ban" to the Trump order [40] said that it should be kept for being a valid search term based on social media trends, rather than for it being factual, neutral or accurate: "This RfD is pedantic and only impedes readers using a very popular name that has been widely bandied about in the news and social media", "this redirect is a highly plausible search term for its current target" "This executive order is often referred to as the Muslim Ban in the media and on social platforms" Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you are Chinese, I want to tell you about Reston virus, a type of Ebola named by Americans after a place in Virginia. There is even a particular breed of this virus named after Pennsylvania. As Ebola has a worse reputation than SARS, maybe you can take some solace in in knowing this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:31, 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) 20:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hirsig, Wyoming[edit]

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

There is just nothing here, and I can't find anything that says what might have been here at some point. Searching is fairly ineffectual because of the prominence of the surname in the state but the only place-related hits are for a set of reservoirs a long way across the state. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNIS-only place name. No evidence in article or searches of actually existing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howell, Wyoming[edit]

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

A rail siding, not a settlement. There is a subdivision adjacent to it but there doesn't appear to be any connection: a business there says it's in Laramie. Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNIS-only place name. No evidence in article or searches of actually existing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_March_20&oldid=947887791"