Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 March	28 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tic Tok Men[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. All references on the main page are from the personal websites of the band. There are additional (outdated/rotted) links on the articles talk page, but none are from non-trivial, published works. I cannot find additional information on the band through my own research. Mbdfar (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article clearly fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Article is full of primary sources and dead links. Koridas (Speak?) 23:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with deletion per WP:BAND. Sources do not support notability and are not reliable. ~riley (talk) 05:41, 3 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 no consensus. As regards this mass nomination - individual renominations are recommended. Sandstein 08:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Honestly, these disambiguation pages are pretty useless and have been defunct for a long time. They should be hatnotes on the primary topic and not disambiguation pages. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A mass Afd nomination is inappropriate here, but keep Cantona, Coentrão, George Heriot and Stephen Darby, and delete the rest per WP:TWODABS (Breukelen has three entries, but one is a partial match). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cantona and Stephen Darby as useful and Coentrão as a redirect to a disambiguation-like page. Delete the rest as a disambiguation page is not required: any disambiguation requirements are already covered by hatnotes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these should be separated. George Heriot (disambiguation) has 5 entries now - clearly WP:USEFUL and meeting MOS:D criteria. Delete for Afton, New York. Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is nothing wrong with dabs with 3 entries - unclear why these are being AfD'd. Keep: Adam Simon has 4 entries. KingSkyLord, are you aware you haven't notified creators of this AfD? I created Stephen Darby (disambiguation) and didn't get a notification. It also has 3 valid entries and so should be kept. Were additional entries looked for as well WP:BEFORE? I'm quickly finding ones to add. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coentrão (surname) is a perfectly valid page, as is Cantona (disambiguation). Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boleyn, @Clarityfiend and @Shhhnotsoloud, to be honest, I can understand why you guys want to keep George Heriot, Adam Simon and Coentrão (the latter doesn't even really have a primary topic), so I'll ultimately let those stay. But I can't argue for why Cantona and Stephen Darby should stay. With only two entries outside the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it could easily be a short hatnote. For example:
  "Cantona" redrects here. For his brother, see Joël Cantona. For the archaeological site, see Cantona (archaeological site).
  
  This article is about the former footballer. For the coach, see Steve Darby. For the 14th-century politician, see Stephen Derby.
- Also, sorry for not pinging you earlier Boleyn. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay either way, but since the dab pages exist, why do extra work? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend, Because there is an apparent primary topic, why create a disambiguation page just to show two links? It's just a lot easier to have a hatnote than have a disambiguation page which wastes space on the encyclopedia per WP:HATCHEAP. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep climate change: The special problem here is that mentioning the Pitbull album on top of the global warming FA (redirected from climate change) would be highly promotional. Global warming has more than 14,000 views per day. Anyone looking for the album can find it easily via the Pitbull article. Hedgehoque (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hedgehoque... what? I don't understand why it should be kept. The album is the only other article in the disambiguation page, besides the primary topic and general concept. It's in the hatnote to help those who are looking for the album and don't know about disambiguators. It's not meant to be promotional. It's meant to the helpful. Besides, the album came out two years ago, so being referred to in a hatnote above an environmental crisis doesn't necessarily give it more publicity or profit for Pitbull than it has already gained in the past two years. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Global warming is not another name for climate change, so there's only the primary topic and the album. Also, Climate change should not redirect to Global warming; Climate change (general concept) should be moved there. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made a formal WP:Requested moves request. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check out the debate on Talk:Global warming with loads of aspects about moving and redirecting between climate change and global warming which was recently finished with this result. It already fills pages. Hedgehoque (talk) 20:47, 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 keep. Nominator withdrawal due to forgetting about WP:ANYBIO. However, the article definitely needs work. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William James Broughton[edit]

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

This biographical article has only one source, which makes verifiability difficult, and has no claim of notability - which means the article fails WP:NBIO. My WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note besides passing mentions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Has an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Dozens of DNZB articles have been put up for deletion and they have all been kept. This one won't be any different as community consensus is that people with an entry in the DNZB meet GNG. Schwede 66 05:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO as has entry in DNZB. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suzette Davenport[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added sources to the article that hopefully show that it meets WP:BASIC, as well as a claim to notability (the first woman to be head of Gloucestershire Constabulary). Seems to be plenty of coverage of her on the internet, I'll keep trying to add stuff. (I feel like receiving an honorary doctorate might qualify her under WP:ANYBIO part 1 as well.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very happy to withdraw this proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, Thanks :-) I can't non-admin close because it seems it has to be the nominator, but I think you can if you like. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 18:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had better work out how you do that! Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 21:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Gwynne[edit]

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

Non notable BLP, inappropriately using only IMDb as as a source for many years Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article only cites her main website, IMDB, and does not pass GNG. Koridas (Speak?) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, and WP:OUTCOMES. No evidence this person is notable. From everything on the article, the subject appears to be run of the mill. We almost always delete articles about producers and editors, and I see no reason why this person is an exception to a well-established consensus. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - clear case for deletion per WP:GNG, external links section is her website and IMDB. ~riley (talk) 05:44, 3 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 21:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Johnston (director)[edit]

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

Non notable director. No evidence of secondary sources available. Inappropriately sourced for several years with no signs of potential for improvement Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and a Google search would be hopeless due to his very common name. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FILMMAKER. Unable to find reliable sources to support keeping. ~riley (talk) 05:45, 3 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 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TAXI (A&R)[edit]

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

May not meet WP:NCORP: another one of those self-described "world's leading" something-or-others. I started to fix references, but it's a stale article full of half-dead URLs, so I'm nominating for discussion to determine if anyone else can track down real WP:CORPDEPTH, or if it should just be deleted. Closeapple (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started myself but I was unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. There are a couple of mentions here and there and the odd interview but those sources fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FoodMayhem[edit]

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

Not notable - trivial mentions. Was no consensus in 2008 when standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Short New York article appears to be about it... Caro7200 (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While their site does appear to get some trivial mentions (e.g. photos being used in other articles), it fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Obviously, if more in-depth and reliable sourcing emerges which causes it to pass WP:NCORP at some point in the future, I would not object to it being re-created. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debasis Laha[edit]

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

0 sources about anyone under this name, keeps being recreated so off to AFD we go. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not satisfy WP:NBIO, nor WP:GNG. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Haven't found any coverage except for a facebook profile. Obviously fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. A search online reveals 40 Ghits, all social media or Amazon-like pages. We don't list every single person who has ever written a book. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Storobin[edit]

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

This article is about a State elected official who served for 11 days of legislative session and less than a year in office in a district that was eliminated. Not a noteworthy individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.97.104.30 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from article talk page. As for my own view, in spite of the brevity of tenure he clearly meets WP:NPOL in particular and sources were easily found to address WP:GNG concerns in general. Looks like a clear keep to me. --Finngall ^talk 18:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 18:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL as a member of the NY legislature. --Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our notability standards for state legislators do not impose a time limit on how long the person has to have held the office before qualifying for an article — the mere fact of holding the office at all is the pivot point on which the notability of state legislators hinges. When it comes to political officeholders, our goal is to be as complete as possible a reference for all of them, not to pick and choose some while excluding others on the basis of some arbitrary cutoff. And no, a state legislator's work doesn't stop happening just because the legislature isn't sitting, because there's still constituency and community and policy work to do — so the number of days the legislature did or didn't sit within the legislator's term is irrelevant to our notability criteria for politicians as well. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a member of the New York State Senate. The duration of his term doesn't matter. The fact that he occupied the position, is enough to warrant an article for him. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep our ideal goal is to have articles on every state legislator ever. The minimum length of service is one day. It is not even clear that the legislature has to have been in session at all during their service.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPOL as a member of the NY legislature.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Even serving six months as a legislator matters, and the New York State Senate meets throughout the year (for one- and two-day special sessions) to give advise and consent to the Governor's many appointments, as well as a lot of constituent work back home in their districts. As we are reminded daily during this pandemic, state officials can make decisions that have life and death consequences. In any case, he is well known as a gadfly in NYC politics, and has garnered significant coverage over several years. Not to put too fine a point to it, but I strongly disagree with many of his policy choices; my advocacy of keeping his article is not an endorsement of the subject or his politics. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Served in senate - duration irrelevant. ~riley (talk) 05:47, 3 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 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne McConnell[edit]

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

Not meeting the notability criteria. The book mentioned doesn't have any significant coverage and the subject fails WP:AUTHOR as well. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete many of these sources are blogs. Graywalls (talk) 04:20, 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 redirect to Deadmau5 discography#Compilation albums. Will also be protected against recreation. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Lack of a Better Album Title[edit]

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

No significant coverage can be found on this specific album. All sources used on this article are all about For Lack of a Better Name. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article has been renamed from the incorrect title at least twice, moved to draft by admins, redirected, and still the article creator appears desperate to make this an article. But the truth is, there are literally no sources at all about this particular album... note that the sources cited in the article are all for For Lack of a Better Name and Random Album Title, and this album is simply a reissue of the two titles together – all the reviews and chart positions are already in the articles for the separate albums, so this article simply duplicates information already on Wikipedia. There is no need to have this article, and no reliable sources at all for this particular release. It should be redirected to Deadmau5 discography#Compilation albums, which I did, but the creator reverted it, so deletion may be the only option. Richard3120 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sources that mention this album alone are download links. Even if there was any different material that was able to be properly sourced, you may as well just merge those materials to the aformetioned albums or the article about deadmau5. Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deadmau5 discography#Compilation albums. It exists, but there doesn't appear to be enough coverage, nor any other justification for keeping the article. --Michig (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: the redirect may need to be protected if that's the case, because the editor has repeatedly moved it back. Richard3120 (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The album has not been discussed in reliable sources. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not critically reviewed. Some of the sources cited in the article are misleading; refs 6 through 9 all redirect to a single website. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Definitely not notable enough by itself, but seems like a valid redirect to deadmau5's album list. – OfficialURL (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Claus[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:BASIC. No evidence to support any notability claims per WP:NACTOR. The subject is mostly mentioned in lists of celebrity impersonators. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohsantepheap Daily[edit]

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

Insubstantial coverage; Has {{Unreferenced}} tag since 2014 - no changes; nn per WP:NCORP Flori4nKT A L K 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Flori4nKT A L K 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Flori4nKT A L K 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The article could be easily improved considering how big it is in Cambodia. Easily passes WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what speedy keep is for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1109/ICSC.2007.104 calls this "one of the most popular newspapers in Cambodia" and doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8438-6_14 "a very popular newspaper in Cambodia". Phil Bridger (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also came across the claim that it is the most read paper in Cambodia. I don't read Khmer, so my access is limited, but I found a few sources and expanded the article a bit. More would be good, but I'm convinced more sources exist to satisfy GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers votes to keep based on our Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability draft guidelines applied to Cambodia. G. Moore 12:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites. Meets WP:GNG by my standards. ~riley (talk) 05:49, 3 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Carr[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet any aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Considered a redirct to Naptown Roller Girls but there is no information in that article about her. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, did not see any good coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to pass NARTIST nor MUSICIAN guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bola tangkas[edit]

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

I am unable to read about this in the original language, but I couldn't establish that this is notable. No article in other language Wikipedias, no sources. Previous AfD was in 2008 (when standards were much lwoer) but showed up a lot of confusion over the term. Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Zero notability, known only in Indonesian online-gamer circles. Not even the Indonesian WP has an article about it. No WP:RS available, except for scattered news reports about police actions enforcing local anti-gambling laws. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 3 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 keep. Leaving aside issues of COI, this is a valid nomination, but the consensus clearly concludes that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion requirements, and we therefore ought to have an article about him. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Tomasso[edit]

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

Hello, I'm submitting a request to delete this pseudo-biography about a low-profile individual per WP:BLP1E, on behalf of Mr. Tomasso. I've reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, completed the checks recommended here, and followed the deletion instructions to the best of my ability. I've reviewed the article's sourcing in detail. Of the nine citations, two do not mention the subject at all (References #2 and #5), two mention the subject in passing (References #1 and #7), and two are official websites of non-notable organizations confirming board roles (References #8 and #9). I don't believe any of the sources would be considered in-depth profiles about the subject.

As for potential sources, searching "William Tomasso" at Google News yields just 4 results: the first actually focuses on Angelo Tomasso Jr.; the second is just a quote by the subject as president of TBI Construction; the third mentions the subject in passing; and the fourth is not about the subject whatsoever. Searching "William A. Tomasso" and "Billy Tomasso" at Google News yield additional results, but after browsing the first several pages of returns, I'm not seeing any coverage specifically about the subject. I should also note, some of the information in the "Career" section already appears in the Tomasso Group's "Modern history" section.

I think most editors would agree there's not enough press coverage of William Tomasso to meet Wikipedia's notability threshold and justify a standalone article. There's not enough coverage to flesh out the page with details about his early life and education, career, personal life, and notable accomplishments, which seem to be the building blocks of a Wikipedia biography. Any details about Mr. Tomasso could easily be covered in Tomasso Group.

Thanks to editors who are willing to review this request. SHtom5916 (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep nominator works for the subject and is mischaracterizing the notability of the subject. Try searching for "William A. Tomasso” on google/google news and you will find many many more than four articles. It should be noted that a major part of the subjects notability is their criminality which would be a good reason to have your personal assistant try to get your wikipedia page deleted. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should be noted that this appears to be the second attempt at COI editing regarding this page [1], the first was less within the rules. The WP:LOWPROFILE argument is also a non-starter because the subject has actively sought out media attention, even if WP:BLP1E applied here (it doesn’t) the subject still wouldn’t be a low profile individual. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and perhaps a Speedy Keep): There appear to be multiple, independent sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject, which satisfy WP:GNG. Moreover, it is very problematic for an employee of the subject to seek the deletion of an article about their employer. Major WP:COI issues here.--
Keep I agree with Horse Eye Jack on the reputational issue while requesting deletion. However the coverage on the subject is pretty substantial which makes him notable per WP:GNG. I'm not gonna even cover the COI here, which is obvious. Less Unless (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, this is an obvious COI attempt to whitewash the subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can we close as a speedy keep now? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you all for the replies here. I understand why editors would be skeptical of someone with a conflict of interest seeking deletion of this article, but my reasons for deletion are based on what I understand so far about sourcing and Wikipedia policy. I submitted this request in good faith, believing Mr. Tomasso didn't meet eligibility. I want to respond to some of the notes here as I want to make sure I understand fully. There is very little secondary coverage specifically documenting William Tomasso outside his connection to Tomasso Group. The article's creator (User:Horse Eye Jack) has said "The WP:LOWPROFILE argument is also a non-starter because the subject has actively sought out media attention", but that's not the case, he keeps a low profile and hasn't had any interviews or profiles. The article right now uses a news profile of his father and Mr. Tomasso's personal website, and the other pieces are mainly about the legal case and aren't solely focused on Mr. Tomasso. I thought that he would need media coverage that was just about him in order to keep a Wikipedia article? SHtom5916 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By legal case do you mean the criminal trial which ended in his conviction? There are two legal cases currently discussed on the page, one civil (the alleged stalking/harassment of a former employee and their family) and one criminal (racketeering, fraud, bribery, extortion, etc). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also [2] appears to be a feature article specifically about “Bill” Tomasso. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we cannot control what the media has already said and WP:PUBLICFIGURE seems to apply, so this is one we'd have to Keep. There are problems with the article's tone off the bat, but that's fixable. --Masem (t) 17:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge somewhere. It all comes down to whether you believe Tomasso is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. If he is then as Masem indicates WP:BLP1E does not apply. But at the moment I don't see any evidence that he is one. Take the current article and delete all discussion of his conviction: would the resulting article survive an AFD? And on a side issue the argument that a completely openly declared COI means we should just ignore the request are obviously wrong: the original poster is behaving perfectly properly here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:19, 1 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 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Baldwin[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable filmmaker. Directed commercials and music videos for unnamed groups. The article says she was nominated for a DGA award, but I'm not finding her OR the company, AT&T, with a nomination that year or surrounding years, so I think whoever wrote this was mistaken. I have done WP:BEFORE in Proquest newspapers, NewspaperArchive, and Newspapers.com. Can't even find an obit or article from 2010 or an external link to add (no IMDb!) that isn't a mirror site.The article was created by a user with a username that is the same name as a person mentioned in the article as someone she was supposed to work with before her untimely death, so there is a potential COI issue. I would have WP:PRODed, but I'm hoping someone will find something, anything, in an attempt to save the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Batey[edit]

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

The player does not meet the notability guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. He did not make an appearance in a Football League match during his career and as such does not appear in Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939. The appearances listed for Brighton & Hove Albion were made in the Southern League. Beatpoet (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, appears to fail both GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 12:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Ingram[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E and general protection of minors. An article on a 7 or 8-year old whose achievements are heavily promoted by his father and then in turn doubted by the media is not the kind of thing we should have her, even if there are some sources about it. Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E, he is only known for this one alleged sprinting time. b uidhe 15:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear-cut instance of WP:BIO1E. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Real Estate Board[edit]

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

Non-notable local (not even national or provincial) industry group of real estate agents. no independent coverage or other indication of notability. Despite the word "Board" in its title, it is not a government agency. The article is mostly used as a vehicle to promote the organization and needs to be constantly policed to remove hype and unsupported claims. TJRC (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Realtor, so I don't have a vested interest in whether or not you delete this article. That said, TRREB is the largest real estate board in Canada and the 3rd oldest continuously operating board in the country. A simple Google search shows notability given the newsworthiness of its efforts to defend their MLS data policies with the federal Competition Bureau and Supreme Court. -- Robocoder (t|c) 17:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They seem to issue a fair number of press releases and they are quoted sometimes when discussing real estate market in Toronto, but I don't see any in-depth coverage about the organization. Glendoremus (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Dragun[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable youtuber with unreliable sources presents. 103.103.98.170 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 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) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable , enough coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Found sources in BBC News, edition.cnn, and the Independent. Passes WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:BASIC with coverage in reliable sources such as the BBC and Elle magazine (already in the article), so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This youtuber is notable for increasing trans awareness. Her response to Victoria's Secret was covered in reputable sources including NBC news. Deleting this article would contribute to Wikpedia's dearth of articles relating to trans people and minorities (Gender bias on Wikipedia). Embuuzy (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting GNG, and sourcing noted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This AfD request makes absolutely no sense. cave (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 Rocket[edit]

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

A defunct media download service (or filesharing service plugin), which has negligible coverage in reliable sources and no real evidence that it was ever notable. I can't see "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG.

Note that this was nominated at AfD in 2014, which did not address the matter of notability - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MP3 Rocket Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Editor-1 (talk) 09:26, 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 speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Zaragoza[edit]

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

The article lacks references King Onyx (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep UAE Pro League is on the fully pro list, technically he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Have you done a WP:BEFORE check? Govvy (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Needs improving, not deleting. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL did manage a match as per this in the UAE Pro League which is Fully Professional League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to pass the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Scottish Pipe Band[edit]

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

Long-standing but don't see sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough sources to show this is a notable organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Washington Scottish Pipe Band seems to only have 6 mentions in the news, with no major coverage about them. I don't know if being an ~80 year old band makes it anymore noteworthy given the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Pilot333 (talk) 16:38, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Sachdeva[edit]

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

Not meeting the notability criteria. The references mentioned are either PR or passing mentions. The claimed book page is coming as not reachable and fails WP:AUTHOR - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete A non-notable writer and producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Just seems run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 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 merge to Baseball in Australia. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Schools Championship (baseball)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a new section in Baseball in Australia#Australian Schools Championship. The subject is not notable in its own right, but is a likely search term and does justify its own due weight section in the Australian overview article. Aoziwe (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Aoziwe. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Saint Francis[edit]

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

Contested PROD; has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources; messy; questionable notability; and multiple COIs. — Jeff G. ツ 06:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Jeff G. ツ 06:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect--So far, the only third party reliable source I've been able to find is this one from anglicansonline. It seems that there is enough room in Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism to fit nearly all of the content from Order of Saint Francis, and it seems like a plausible search term. So the article could become a subsection on the Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism page and the redirect could point to the section. If two more adequate sources can be found, consider my vote to be a "keep" instead.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, if more sources come up please ping me, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- All the references seem to be deadlinks. This means I have no idea how significant the order is. The merge proposal is thus probably the best outcome. If kept, it should be renamed to reflect that this is not the Catholic Order. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of ATK players. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of ATK (football club) players[edit]

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

Duplicate article of two years old List of ATK players, no point in maintaining two articles.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mess is done with article List of ATK (football club) players under the heading of the article ATK (football club) and included everything that the article requires whereas the article List of ATK players has copied everything form List of ATK (football club) players and I'd request everyone involved in the discussions to let List of ATK (football club) players sustain.
I'd also cite that the user who proposed it's deletion has forced perfect article List of ATK (football club) players to redirect and the list of them only enlisted 3 players of the first season but List of ATK (football club) players has enlisted every player which these dominant guys has simply copied and pasted. I even proposed deletion of List of ATK players but they messed by removing messages many a times. I'm agitated that my labour was undone. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC). Retain the article and delete List of ATK players instead.[reply]
Delete Or rather, some kind of soft merge? The article is the same except for a different coat of paint.
To @Akhiljaxxn, looking at the edit history of the article you authored, it seems you have been taking a lot of inspiration from the duplicate article. While this is fine, it does seem rude to other editors.
To SHISHIR DUA, it seems you were aware of the article's existence, as you had edited it in April of 2019. If you felt the article was not sufficient, why not improve it instead of making a new one?
And to you both, I would suggest you ~~shake hands~~ bump elbows and both contribute to one article. Preferably List of ATK players Thepenguin9 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You don't need two articles for the same thing. Govvy (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate. Giant Snowman 17:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/histmerge.~~ It's difficult to tell from the histories what came first and where it came. There have been a significant number of copy/pastes, redirects and undoings. We don't need two lists for the same thing, and List of ATK players would seem to be the correct name. But wherever it ends up, please will the closing admin make sure that, for correct attribution, all the relevant history gets attached to whichever page remains.
Also, SHISHIR DUA, you may want to have a look at WP:CANVASS, so that next time you notify others about an AfD, you do it in a neutral manner. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per MrClog. Much simpler. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ATK players. I have added {{copied}} to both pages to make sure that proper attribution is given. The page should not be deleted as long as List of ATK players exist, because the page's history serves as attribution for the copied content. Histmerge may be possible, though would be quite complicated in this circumstance I'm afraid, because editing has continued on both pages. --MrClog (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List of ATK players This was created in 2018, and List of ATK (football club) players this one in 2020. So, there's no point in keeping the later one. If someone copy-pastes from one to another then its a different editor-editor issue. The name ATK is more suitable. Also, the overseas article should be merged with this one. Thus, I vote for delete or just redirect to previous one. ❯❯❯ S A H A 13:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Delete should not be the option for this one. This was what the List of ATK players looking like untill the materials copied from List of ATK (football club) players, so I am not convinced, why List of ATK (football club) players should be deleted, why not List of ATK players? WP:HISTMERGE can be a option but may not be possible or WP:R may be the best option. Dey subrata (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the page is indeed not an option, as it would create a copyright (attribution) problem. Redirect seems best to me, because List of ATK players is a more suitable title, and that way we can keep the attribution. --MrClog (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrClog and Dey subrata:; SHISHIR DUA made his first edit on the page List of ATK players back in 2019. Which means he was well aware of the existence of that page. And there is no need to create a new page for the same subject in the very next year.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akhiljaxxn: That's why we want to turn it into a redirect. That way, the legally required attribution still exists. --MrClog (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected it once, but he restored it.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SHISHIR DUA can you explain the above mentioned edit, otherwise it looks a wastage of time for all here. Dey subrata (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dey subrata the redirect seems to have been done without any consensus so this line of inquiry seems moot. Thepenguin9 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepenguin9: the redirect was actully based on the proposel of him.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpreted his request. He was requesting that your article be merged into his, due to the Proposed Deletion template he used, (unfortunately Merge to is the right one) Thepenguin9 (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MrClog. Shanze1 (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this formation of the topic is not notable. Noting in case of future recreations, there might be related or similar topics which are notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Initiative (Italy)[edit]

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

Politically irrelevant federation, the only information concerns its foundation. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Nomination without merit. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Staszek Lem: You write "Nomination without merit" but... can you explain why this page is encyclopaedically relevant? I don't see anything relevant on this "alliance", the only source concerns the alliance between UDEUR and RDC called Democratic Initiative, there are not other news about it, no known political activity, therefore it doen't seem to me a nomination without merit.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I stand corrected. There was a faction "Iniziativa democratica" within Democrazia Cristiana since 1951. In fact there is an article about it in Italian wikipedia. It is unclear how it is related to the one described here. Therefore to vote correctly, further research required:

nuke this one
expand it with it:Iniziativa democratica
have two articles, Democratic Initiative (1taly, 1951) , Democratic Initiative (1taly, 2008)

Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have now noticed the link with the Italian page on the Christian Democracy's faction, which instead, unlike this alliance, is surely relevant. The title "Democratic Initiative (Italy)" should only be used for that faction. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to rewrite the page entirely, changing the current object with that of the Italian page (the faction of Christian Democracy). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would like to point up that the whole page only narrates the foundation of this "coalition". In reality it is just one of the many coalition announcements in Italy that have never had any follow-up, it disappeared immediately after the announcement of its foundation, in my view it has no encyclopedic relevance.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence for this coalition of notability under GNG or any SNG. If an editor wishes to make an article about the earlier coalition, they can create it separately. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still in active discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:05, 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. Notability seems to hinge for keep voters on his fame and his being a recipient of the Taraggi medal. The claim of fame has not been substantiated by sources and editors favoring delete suggest that the Taraggi medal is too common to convey notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damed Imanov[edit]

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

Notability is under question. Doesn't meet criterias of WP:BLP Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damed Imanov's article meets this criterion

Shortcut

WP:ANYBIO

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the progress medal really a medal that confers notability on its recipients? What was Imanov's "widely recognized contributions that is part of the enduring historical record in a spefific field" and what are the sources that show this accomplishment is widely recognized?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: the Progress or Taraggi is the most common medal in Azerbaijan. Thounsands of people are awarded with that. Here are some orders of President about awarding the aforementioned medal starting from February 22nd: [3] [4] [5]. It means nearly 50 people are awarded within the last 30 days. --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would indicate to me that being given the medal is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what his widely recognized contribution was. Just looking at who has received the progress medal, I see no evidence that receiving it is such a widely recognized mark of merit that people become notable for that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a famous ship captain, awarded a medal for his contribution to the development of maritime transport in Azerbaijan.

He led the fleet of such a large company as SOCAR, and this in itself proves that he is an important person.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Damed Imanov was awarded more than 20 honourary rewards. In 2010, he was awarded honourary diploma “Inam” upon the order of Trade Union of Media Workers Presidium. For his further achievements he was honoured an international award of Ukraine and Russia – 1 degree order of “Cossack glory”. On the 90th anniversary of the Great Leader Heydar Aliyev, the “Dede Gorgud” International Foundation honoured Damed Imanov with the national reward of “In the name of peace on earth”.

He was awarded the Medal "For services in the shipping industry" by the Order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan and its this proves that HE made a wide contribution to the ship industry.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed and passed this article at New Page Patrol, and the author User:Elshad_Iman_(Elşad_İman) has invited me to participate here. I noted some uncertainty at the time of review, and the need to translate and read the sources. I’ll try that later. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Reference 2[6] meets the GNG, I think. The publication seems OK. It is a happy birthday article, featuring a notable person not connected to the publication, and it contains significant commentary on the subject. The other references do not, but do substantiate a series of awards that he has won. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. az:Daməd_İmanov has been deleted three times, and is currently deleted. There appears to be irregularities with the article history and deletion discussion. Sort it out on the native language Wikipedia before attempting re-creation here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Notable in the Azerbaijani context, with significant national awards. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 05:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For me, it all hinges on the Taraggi medal. Based on what I have seen, it is not significant enough to automatically grant notability, but I am happy to reconsider if further evidence is provided. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Keep As per SmokeyJoe. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues SmokeyJoe, Sagotreespirit, 1292simon thank you for your reasonable and important comments during the discussion, what other additions can you write under the new paragraph?
Please follow the advice of our respected wikipedist to reach a consensus. / Although I said this, I will clarify my opinion again and share it with you - the article meets wikipedia criteria, as the captain was a senior fleet commander in SOCAR and served as fleet chief for seven years.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you pinged only the people who had voted "keep" at the time. Smells like WP:CANVASSING to me. 1292simon (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete the medals are not notable at all. The Taraggi medal is the most common medal in Azerbaijan. It's awarded to even high school teachers. Thounsands of people are awarded with that. I don't consider ens.az as a reliable source. As an Azerbaijani it's the first time i come across the site. If he was famous and notable, internet links and other information would be more abundant. SmokeyJoe, Sagotreespirit, 1292simon, please take a look at these links: [7] [8] [9]. Nearly 50 people are awarded within a few weeks. The medal is not notable at all. We've deleted this page on Azerbaijani Wikipedia twice, and keep deleting other persons whose only notability criteria is receiving Taraggi. If it doesn't pass azwikis notability criterias, then no way it should stay on English Wikipedia. Cheers! --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the Wikipedia article of Damed Imanov in the Azerbaijani section Done, it is clear that the first final decision was incorrect (deleted), another administrator decided to keep the article and noted that he was an encyclopedic person. It is wrong to delete an article without a conclusion. Then I think that the decision was unjustified because it was deleted on a personal basis without discussion. It should be noted that the principles of Wikipedia should not prevail over friendship and acquaintance. Voting for article deletion should be based on discussion.

In this case, we see that there is a clear advantage in voting on this decision, and the arguments of Wikipedists justify the preservation of the article. Let the decision be made by the Wikipedia community, and not on a personal basis! Strong keep--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my personal war with you, i'm just being totally unbiased and i respect you. Just check my contributions on both wikis, i only create articles about culture and try to be as neutral as possible. The article on azwiki is deleted - three times. Cekli829 violated the rules and changed the result of the discussion: Click here and here. No wonder why he is not an administrator anymore. Straightforward: The medal is not encyclopedic - even my father is awarded with that. Just because people from other countries have difficulties to fathom the importance of medals of foreign states, you shouldn't make use of it. Just because Damed Imanov is your close relative (Iman - Imanov) it doesn't mean he should have an article on Wikipedia. Let's be more active on other topic and contribute to Wikipedia, and not make it a website of/for friends. Thanks! --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has the biography been deleted at az.wikipedia.org? As above I found one ok weak source. I think we should defer to the decision at the native language Wikipedia, but I can’t find the article or log. Am I looking in the wrong language? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have changed my vote above to Delete. Here's what I could find about the deletion on az.wikipedia.org: Jan 2019 AfD, July 2019-Elshad Iman's Talk page, July 2019- NMW03's Talk page (admin who closed the AfD as Delete), March 2020 AfD. Copying and pasting into Google Translate shows it to be a murky rabbit-hole.
Some of the characters are familiar though... regarding this comment from the AfD admin (quote via Google Translate) I remember that when I researched the people involved in the discussion, I found out that Elshad Iman, Bashir Imanov and NapKins were connected. Elshad Iman wrote on his page that he is the granddaughter of Bashir Imanov's sister. Therefore, I have a question for Elshad Iman (Elşad İman): do you have a COI that should be disclosed here? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1292simon: the situation is complicated indeed, but i can clarify. The article was first deleted by Eminn and he closed the AfD as Delete. Then, a few days later, Cekli829 came back and changed the decision for no reason. It was against the rules so Eminn redeleted it. I don't know whether there were personal ties between Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) and Cekli829, but it is what it is. After a few weeks Cekli was dismissed from administrators list by Meta-Wiki for abusing admin rights. As a result, the article was deleted by NMW03, because Cekli was not an impediment anymore. And recently Elshad Iman applied to restore the page here. Some other details are not related to the article. My point is that, the medals Damed İmanov received don't make him be notable. For instance this list shows a certain fraction of official state medal and awards. As you can see there are orders which are on the top line. They are more important. There are tens of medals of Azerbaijan and they are awarded to thousands of people by President of Azerbaijan. Obviously, the list are announced on the official website of the President. He doesn't officially hand the awards, except for most important 3-4 orders. For instance in these lists, you can see how many people are awarded with Taraggi: [10] [11]. The section "“Tərəqqi” medalı ilə" shows the list - almost 80 people within two decrees. And the complete list of recipients goes beyond that (maybe thousands). His second award is nothing special either - it's a medal, not an order in the end. Due to the fact that this medal is recently-established and only given to sailors, it's less awarded. A large portion of sailors and even civil servants receive at least one or two medals during their service in Azerbaijan. --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear colleague, the person is not only awarded the medal of progress, the person has twice been awarded by the President of the Republic, for example, the article refers to the official page of the President.

I remember that there was a conflict of interest among the managers who even wrote that I was the same person as the manager of Cekli829, but this is not true (what is written in the discussion of the article is similar to this baseless claim).

I think that this article should not cause us to oppose it because it is scandalous. My personal opinion is not the main one, but I applied for restoration in the Azerbaijan section based on encyclopedic criteria. For example, this article [12] is exactly the same as Damed Imanov's article. This person has been awarded the Progress Award and has other achievements. Thanks! --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elshad Iman (Elşad İman): the person has a honorary title of "Honored Engineer of Azerbaijan" he is considered as a notable person. --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is as the Azerbaijani sea captain, in this area, the head of the SOCAR marine department is significant and influential.

Now the company is one of the most promising oil companies in the world, and the prospects for socio-economic development of Azerbaijan are associated with its activities. Leaders and the most active in public activities representatives of fairly influential political and public non-political organizations are considered encyclopedic personalities.

Pay attention to the article, about a person is also written in the Azerbaijani state newspaper, in the Azerbaijani book there is an article about him, several times awarded by the President of the Republic. All this gives reason to keep the article here. He is a man who has dedicated his life to shipping in Azerbaijan.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- (About argument) There is an interwiki in the Azerbaijani language - Wikipedia itself does not consider itself a reliable source.

Including sections in other languages. So this is not an argument. Additionally, see WP:AADD in the words “No interwiki.”--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An important criterion of Wikipedia is the detailed coverage of any subject or topic in independent and authoritative sources.

1) Independent source: about “Damed Imanov”, on the portal of the state newspaper of the Azerbaijan Caspian Shipping Company (asco.az), on the portal of the Azerbaijan encyclopedia (ens.az), in the international magazine of Azerbaijan (mir-azerbaydjana.az), on the independent socio-political published in the newspaper (vyshka) and other sites.

2) Authoritative source: About "Damed Imanov", published on the authorized and official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan (President.az).

The page is free of spelling errors, long monologues, unstructured material that creates the frame, information that has been translated from another language and cannot be verified, myths, lies and slander.

· The page is not intended for vandalism.

· The page is unique and is not a copy of any page.

· The page is not spam, the content of the page is based on facts only.

I ask for an investigation and a consensus.Premeditated Chaos Thanks!--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elshad Iman (Elşad İman): Why do you ping other admins, to help to keep the article? You did this many times and warned. Not to mention that you have been blocked several times on azwiki, one them them for suing admins for deletion. There's no need to worry about the result of the discussion, even i have an article deleted here, and abide by the decision of the community.

It's obvious that you can create tens of millions of biography articles based on your criterias (neutrality, correct information; so on and so forth). If they don't meet notability of Wikipedia, then they are not encyclopedic. Let's not exaggerate the discussion with overt and unhelpful information and keep room for other volunteers to contribute to the topic. Thanks! --Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's feels like Elshad Iman is trying to WP:BLUDGEON through a Keep outcome here. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why on earth I'm being pinged here; I have nothing to do with this discussion or this topic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that Imanov's main claim to notability is receiving a recognition that does not rise to the level of WP:BIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So let’s notes here is no known good reason for deletion other than a flawed subjective view of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.67.58 (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this Afd. GPL93 (talk) 03:23, 3 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 keep. I see no point in relisting yet again (non-admin closure) Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pkah Thgall Meas[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Couldn't find any coverage or any mentions on notable sources. Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Or transfer the small amount of content to the actress Vichara Dany's page. The movie poster could be moved there too, as she is deceased and has no portrait; she is the woman dominating the poster. The simple fact is that with Cambodian articles it is frequently impossible to find reliable sources for pre-genocide Cambodia, because of the genocide itself. I don't feel comfortable erasing anything from before that has managed to survive, even in this sourceless form. Jacqke (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caveats similar to Jacqke's. Although unsourced, a Gsearch on the Khmer title provides enough results to demonstrate the existence of this movie. Most of those results are not generally evidence of notability but there is enough to suggest that a user with Khmer language skills could well find enough RS to sustain an article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST, with the Khmer sources that Eggishorn refers to. If there's a likelihood that reliable sources exist, then the subject is notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:55, 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. Sandstein 08:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Wonda[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources in the article are primary sources and are not independent of the subject. The subject has not made a name for herself in London or Nigeria. She doesn't have a music career to speak of. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - information regarding Princess Wonda and her music career was found on Google on reputable media houses from Nigeria and Ghana as shown by the Google search results here https://www.google.com/search?q=princess+wonda&safe=active&rlz=1C1CHWL_enGH822GH822&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAONgecTYw8gt8PLHPWGpJsZJa05eY6zh4grOyC93zSvJLKkU0uNig7JUuASlePXT9Q0NsyyN88yy86o0GKT4uVCFlOyMjHZdmnaOTUfQ3jrykKFSsIOUiJIQF7tnsU9-cmKO4Jz1__7_-vPeXomTk4GB4YBr0zZ7LYamfSsOsbFwMAow8Cxi5SsoysxLTi0uVijPz0tJBABMxkpAowAAAA&sxsrf=ALeKk00iYaorkJhv5_f3bMl7tyOoYkukRw:1584644574604&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwnduHnafoAhVSx4UKHX0RBnYQ_AUIDSgA&biw=1366&bih=663&dpr=1 Geezygee (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject of article does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & has not been discussed with significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her. Celestina007 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:24, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Tessier[edit]

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

Wholly fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I'm seeing virtually no coverage of the subject. Very poorly sourced WP:BLP that has been around for way too long. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for any of his actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gotten push back for this vote on my talk page. I still hold he is a local level real estate developer and community leader that does not rise to the level of actually being notable. Director listings from places he is on the board for do not show notability for example, and I am not convinced there is the level of coverage in regional press to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same, my talk page is getting spammed by IP posts that are rambling, accusatory and otherwise plain rude. And I agree even with what was pointed out, there's simply no WP:SIGCOV to warrant notability outside of WP:LOCAL. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:06, 1 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 keep. Consensus is that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards and that the article should be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbie Kamin[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. While Houston is certainly a large and important enough city that its city councillors could be deemed notable if they were citing reliable source coverage in media, that's not what this is doing: it's referenced to two primary sources and a WordPress blog, none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all, and it essentially just verifies that she exists without documenting any evidence of her political significance. Even in major cities, the city councillors still are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie on bad sourcing just because they exist -- the inclusion test is still the depth of media coverage they can show to support a substantive article. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Kamin is a city councilor of a prominent international city this gives notability, even Bearcat agreed Houston was a prominent city. WP:ARTN states an articles poor sourcing and content does not diminish notability. In my opinion WP:NEXIST also applies here. If you go look at other city councilor articles like Vivian Moreno or Michael Scott Jr. their sourcing and content isn't much better or worse. This is a similar deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Baker (politician) for a city councilor of a city smaller than Houston which at the time had 1 sentence in it, the result was speedy keep. Notability does not depend on sourcing and content, Kamin is notable because she is a city councilor of a prominent international city and because of her coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here are some WP:NEXIST sources that prove notability [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep Based on the state of the article I'd say delete, but the fact is that she has reliable sources about her so that's a reason to keep. ⌚️ (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article is in poor shape, but good sources have been found. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 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 keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naeem Ashraf Raja[edit]

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

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - assuming everything is true, this person appears to be notable. can we have more time to look? Bearian (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had some luck and 6 Dawn references showed up for me (Störm and Bearian). So I am working on it now. Wishing all of us stay safe from Corona Virus also. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a gnews search brings up numerous mentions where Naeem is asked/provides input ie. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, that could reflect his recognised contribution in the field of biodiversity in Pakistan, as per WP:ANYBIO? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Replaced all dead links and cleaned up, has 9 working references now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ngrewal1 subject is the Director Biodiversity, Ministry of Climate Change and is the National Focal Point as per Convention of Biological Diversity and is the key person in Pakistan for biodiversity.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:42, 3 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Idrettskontakt[edit]

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

Tagged for three years I can find no independent sources, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nom, GNG, and PSTS. Analog Horror, (Speak) 14:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- An organisation with 250 local branches should be notable. This is a Norwegian organisation, so that the lack of English language sources (which is suspect is the complaint) is unsurprising. It did not take me long to find this source, which looks independent and says 300 groups, implying growth since the WP article was written. This Norwegian WP article is rather longer than the English one, but it is a language that I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source is a routine listing and not in-depth coverage. If you know of any Norwegian sources please add them. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Norwegian WP has an article on this, Kristen idrettskontakt, unfortunately it is unreferenced, it does mention that this organisation has won the 2005 Petter Dass-prisen, an annual prize awarded by Vårt Land, and the 2002 Bridge Builder Award, awarded annually by the Norwegian Church Academies, getting there, but more needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in major Norwegian newspapers [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31], particularly on the 2019 drama regarding the ban on homosexual camp-leaders. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, as Thjarkur has found with diligent research.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per a source review, this organization meets WP:ORGDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 4 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 keep. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wake (Trio Töykeät album)[edit]

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

Not notable. Not enough sources exist for an article of substance. Vmavanti (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:NALBUM, also unsourced. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 23:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the Finnish official album chart to the article (peak at 15, 6 weeks total). I also found these two articles/reviews from Helsingin Sanomat which I can't access at the moment because of paywall. The album is also possibly mentioned in this article in the same newspaper which lists the magazine's favorite albums of 2005 (it came up when I searched for the album in the archives). I also found these interviews about the album release in regional newspapers. -kyykaarme (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 05:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per kyykaarme. Combining the charting and other secondary coverage should constitute a weak keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources/chart info identified by kyykaarme. — Hunter Kahn 13:38, 3 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 keep. Per Eggishorn, especially FT source. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business Plus (TV Channel)[edit]

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

No coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Article has zero sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not about the article, it is about the article subject. Searching "Business+Plus"+TV+Channel+karachi+stock+exchange+-wikipedia www.google.com/search?&q=%22Business+Plus%22+TV+Channel+karachi+stock+exchange+-wikipedia discloses a large number of streaming hosts and coverage in Financial Times, indicating that the channel is of interest to Pakistani expatriate investors. A rare article where WP:NOTCLEANUP actually applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Ecosystem[edit]

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

The article is simply false. The term "cultural ecosystem", particularly with reference to "cultural ecosystem services", appears in scads of papers and published sources before 2013, the year when the article claims it was first used, and the article focuses entirely on the meaning attributed to it by a single person despite its tremendously broader use. If anyone is using term to connote the specific concept that Álvaro Pastor had in mind when using it in 2013, that specific concept appears far from notable insofar as the article sources it only to him, and Google returns no hits at all (other than two Revolvyy blurbs) for "cultural ecosystem" "alvaro pastor". Largoplazo (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems a bit unusual to argue that a page should be deleted because there are too many sources available, but that is actually the case here. A Google Scholar search finds over 1500 hits for the phrase "cultural ecosystem" prior to 2010, as one would expect for a term that is easy to coin in many contexts and use with a low degree of formality. I doubt there is any one single meaning that can be attributed to it, and there is no indication that Álvaro Pastor's definition stands out among the possibilities. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that the term was introduced by Álvaro Pastor is central to the article and demonstrably wrong. Vexations (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - False article with false statements. Koridas (Speak?) 16:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catahoula Creek[edit]

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

A stream in Mississippi. Unnotable per WP:NGEO. The article only contains two sentences, one stating it's a stream and another about what language the name is derived from. Flori4nKT A L K 00:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No you were right in the first place! Merely having a name is not automatic notability – WP:GEOLAND#3 applies, and knowing where the name came from is not significant enough coverage. Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your vote to delete this encyclopedic entry. The banks of Catahoula Creek were home to the Choctaw long before Europeans arrived. The Hancock County Historical Society mentions this on their website. ^[1] DavidDelaune (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hancock County Historical Society. "Center-Caesar". Hancock County Historical Society. Retrieved 2020-03-27.

Strong Keep Catahoula Creek is a natural waterway with a long established history: its name can be traced back to the Native American Choctaw people of the southeastern US. Per WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." – Gilliam (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My god, what crock! That's merely the etymology of the word "Catahoula", same as Catahoula Parish, Louisiana and Catahoula Leopard Dog – you don't know a damn thing about this little creek's history!

The source, citing Louisiana Place-Names of Indian Origin, does NOT say the Choctaw named this creek nor anything about its naming. Having a name and the etymology of such word is NOT information about the natural feature warranting notability! Reywas92^Talk 06:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"what crock!" presumably we're not talking about gold here? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep legally recognized places and natural features are usually presumed to be notable: WP:GEOLAND. DavidDelaune (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to GEOLAND, "named natural features are often notable". –dlthewave ☎ 16:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book, which features Catahoula Creek in its study of darters, says Heins & Clemmer (1975) gave a general description of Catahoula Creek. I think they are referring to this paper which does indeed spend a few paragraphs describing the creek. It is also central to their study, which in itself gives the creek notability. Amongst other things, they state that the creek is the main tributary of the Jourdan River, which, while it does not yet have an article, is redlinked from six different articles. This is clearly an area where Wikipedia needs to expand its coverage, not remove it. The page can clearly be expanded into a few paragraphs at least, and if still small, might be merged into a future Jourdan River article. SpinningSpark 02:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO as a named natural feature, this source from Water Resources Data for Mississippi can be used to verify that Catahoula Creek is officialy recognised as a tributary to Jourdan River, a gsearch under "Jourdan River Catahoula Creek" brings up numerous hits ie. in Environmental Biology of Darters: "Life history of the naked sand darter, Ammocrypta beani, in southeastern Mississippi" (sub required), John C. Stennis Space Center: "Resource Management - Surface Water", Country Roads magazine: "Hunting James Copeland's Lost Treasure - Legend has it there's pirate gold in Catahoula Creek", Bridgehunter.com shows that a number of roads and their bridges cross Catahoula Creek, Copeia: "Ontogeny and Allometry of Body Shape in the Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta" (sub required). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the Watershed Boundary Dataset via The National Map's viewer it drains 415 square kilometres (160 sq mi) and its drainage basin is large enough that the USGS uses it to define a level-5 watershed. It's definitely not tiny. --TimK MSI (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is a coatrack of factoids tangentially related to the subject. Majority of sources cover scientific studies of various species in the creek, they're not about the creek itself. Likewise the bit about the Center settlement is about a place that happened to be along the creek. –dlthewave ☎ 16:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that research into fish in a river is not about the river is stretching a point too far. But even without that, and even without the passage on Center, we are still left with more than nothing. SpinningSpark 16:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

taking this deletion argument (a bit) further we could suggest that most/all sources on any town/city are about the people/organisations/buildings/features in the said town/city and not about the town/city itself. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Spinningspark, the article now contains substantially more encyclopedic information than 'two sentences'. Woodlot (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, excellent work by Spinningspark. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY by Spinningspark.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 3 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.

Manchester Pipe Band[edit]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Flori4nKT A L K 16:58, 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.

Holyoke Caledonian Pipe Band[edit]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets criteria 1 for notability, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Including the American Pelican Publishing Company, the Manchester University Press of the UK, the Springfield Republican, and Hartford Courant. Amongst those are citations establishing it as the oldest continuously operated pipe band in the United States, one which has participated in the Cowal Games. I could understand this being a { { refimprove } }, but none of those are self-published or band affiliated. In contrast to this and Manchester Pipe Band, a minimum 3 of the articles you've listed on your own user page have no 3rd party citations as of this writing, City of Seattle Pipe Band, Stonehouse Pipe Band, and City of Blacktown Pipe Band, some of which cite sources by members of said bands, or none at all. Please support your statement with additional information.--Simtropolitan (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - I've realised from a few different responses (spread over a wide area) that there are significant differences of opinion on how notability works for piping related articles, and I might need to treat a bit more carefully rather than assuming that only a very few people care. Currently working out how to go about cleaning up these articles, and choosing which ones to nominate for deletion, in the future! Best, Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As to that, please support yours by additional information. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", not just an airy claim that the band is the subject of the citations. In point of fact, none of the viewable secondary citations give more than a namedrop to the subject. Would you like to provide some reliable sources that do? (That being said, unrelated articles listed on the nom's user page have nothing to do with this AfD.) Ravenswing 14:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing:, they have everything to do with this matter- this is about consistency. If the bulk of piping articles must go that's one thing, but to cherrypick a few which offer independent sources while giving different treatment to those citing bands own websites, is unacceptable. And there are more than several sources which do in fact address this topic that fall within the purview of WP:Offline sources. All of these are searchable in the OCLC, Newsbank, and other reliable outlets. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. --Simtropolitan (talk) 21:40, 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) 10:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Port Dover Pipe Band[edit]

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

Another non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pipe band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage beyond local routine coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:49, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fredericton Society of St. Andrew Pipe Band[edit]

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

Non-notable pipe band - think it fails GNG, no historical notability either. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails basic Wikipedia notability criteria. Andrew nyr (talk) 05:23, 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.

[Cal_Stewart_–_Uncle_Josh_Weathersby_-_Tales_Of_Pun'kin_Centre-1] Hancock County Historical Society. "Center-Caesar". Hancock County Historical Society. Retrieved 2020-03-27.

[1]