Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 March	29 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn, Colorado[edit]

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

A great deal of padding does not get past the reality that this is yet another rail siding, with no surrounding community. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question I disagree about "padding" and "reality" (see my !vote below), but what evidence do you have that there is any rail siding involved? I see a whole lot of AFDs about places, with assertions as here that the place is merely a rail siding and never a community. I am wondering if some/many of these AFD nominations are just bogus. User:Mangoe, could you please explain about this one? --Doncram (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is guidance on this as per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Auburn is not an incorporated place nor is it a census-designated place, so there is no automatic notability that a legally recognized place would have. Nonetheless unincorporated communities can be notable if sufficient reliable sources exist for the subject, a la WP:GNG. thecrossingstory.com is a Rocky Mountain News repository site from the Denver Public Library, and Page 2 and Page 4 are among those with Wikipedia:Significant coverage of the topic. As per those pages a school did exist in the past. I'm trying to find at least one more published source about this (if there is a state specialist encyclopedia of Colorado covering settlements like this, I would appreciate it!). WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WhisperToMe's identified source establishes it was a community, centered about a school. That is a populated place, a community, and notability is not temporary. Excerpt from the source:

Ninety miles away in the small Weld County farming community of Auburn, Duane Harms faced the same bitterly cold morning.
The 23-year-old school bus driver, a slender man with reddish-blond hair and freckles, had tried college, but struggled.
Now he had a job with School District No. 6, driving a bus in the morning and afternoon along a latticework of straight gravel roads.
During the day, he worked as an elementary school janitor.
He and his wife of 2 1/2 years, Judy, had a 3-week-old baby, Lynda, who had been born the day after Thanksgiving.
Judy was a student at the state college in Greeley, working toward a teaching degree. She and Duane lived next to the old Auburn school in an 800-square-foot home originally built for the teacher.
Five miles southeast of Greeley, the Auburn area had no general store, no post office.
Simple frame houses stood along its straight, bumpy roads. Sugar beets, corn, alfalfa and pinto beans grew in its vast, flat fields.
The families who lived there were first-, second- and third-generation immigrants — German-Russian, Swedish, Mexican — with names like Alles, Geisick, Munson, Brown, Rangel and Ford.
They drove into Greeley, or to Platteville or Gilcrest, to worship. They went to Catholic, Baptist and Congregational churches.
For three generations, children had taken their lessons in the Auburn school's classrooms, played ball out by the backstop.
But the school was closed, and now, for the first time, the farm kids of Auburn rode a bus into Greeley.

And another excerpt of text (which has a photo of the school in the source):

Life as it had always been in the Auburn farming community hung there with him, its final seconds quickly slipping away.
A 23-year-old with a newborn daughter, Harms had been content as a janitor at Delta Elementary outside Greeley. The work kept him busy, and it was only temporary, anyway, while his wife finished college and earned her teaching certificate. But his boss wanted him to drive the bus, and after days of wrangling he'd finally agreed to add that to his cleaning duties.
The people of Auburn had been content, too, with their three-room country school, where generations of kids had learned to read and write and add and subtract. Many could walk to the blond-brick schoolhouse. Some rode their horses, tying them up out back between the old outhouses.
But those times were gone. The Auburn school was shuttered. Now, the boys and girls stamped their feet and fidgeted against the brutally cold morning, farm kids on the edge of the road, waiting to board the bus.
Girls wore print dresses and bundled up in wool coats and hand-knitted mittens and caps. Boys pulled rubber galoshes over their shoes.
They carried their books — Learning To Use Arithmetic and Roads to Everywhere — under their arms with their three-ring binders.
They clutched sack lunches.
They were living on the cusp of tremendous change — in the country, in Colorado, in Auburn. John F. Kennedy — the youngest American president and the first born in the 20th century — was celebrating his first Christmas season in the White House. Just the night before, he and first lady Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy attended a party for White House employees in the East Room.
In Colorado, a wave of school district consolidations had swept the state.
Less than two generations before, the state had more than 2,000 districts, many with only one building.
By the mid-1950s, a legislative study had declared reorganization of Colorado's school districts the state's top educational priority. Between 1956 and 1961, nearly 700 had been eliminated. Only 275 remained.
One victim was the Auburn district, about five miles southeast of Greeley.
Little money but not poor
The farm families of Auburn scratched out a life in the flat fields, sometimes working 20 hours a day, fixing whatever broke, sewing their own clothes, making do with what they had. Many rented their homes and land, and some farm workers lived in houses provided by their employers.
They grew their own vegetables, butchered their own chickens.
Most of them — children and grandchildren of German-Russian and Swedish immigrants who came to America with nothing — considered themselves fortunate.
Art and Juanita Larson certainly did.
She put in 28 or 29 days a month as a nurse's aide at Weld County General Hospital in Greeley. He drove a delivery truck six days a week. Their monthly income — $200 — allowed them to buy their 23-acre farm in Auburn in 1957.

Clearly a former community. There are a good number of 1-, 2-, or 3-room rural schools that survive and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, partly as they were the core of a rural community like this. As NRHP listings they are documented and Wikipedia-notable. It probably is not necessary to have a separate article about the school and the community; one combo article is probably better. The school does not have to be NRHP-listed for the community to be notable; whether or not the school building still exists (not clear here) there should be a combo article because the community existed and was a populated place. --Doncram (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Daniels School, currently a redlink, is an example of a schoolhouse in Weld County that survives and is NRHP-listed (and is asserted to be the only surviving brick rural schoolhouse in the county). It was used for multiple purposes in its community/area, as I am sure the Auburn School was too: It was a center for ration book registration during World War II, it was a Junior Red Cross Unit, it was a meeting place for Boy Scouts and other groups, etc.^[1]

References

^ Tiffany VanderSchaaf (February 21, 2005). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Daniels School / School District No. 217 / 5WL.31". National Park Service. Retrieved March 29, 2020. With accompanying 18 photos from 2004-05

Other rural schools were used for dances and other community events. It is nice that the Daniels school is documented fully in an NRHP listing, which it could be from fact of its survival as a brick building, and the interest of a local historical society, but the Auburn community did also exist too. --Doncram (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Auburn School building still exists, at 40°22′40″N 104°38′22″W / 40.377871°N 104.639575°W, and is same as pictured in the document cited above. It would likely be NRHP-eligible if it were not modified too much, but has probably been renovated and is probably a private residence now, as best as I can figure from viewing it in Google Streetview. It is extremely plausible that this school and its community could be documented as well as the Daniels one; deleting Wikipedia coverage is not a helpful step. --Doncram (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this article (which I can't read, it wants me to pay to subscribe, as I am over the limit there) in Denver Post from 2007, about establishment of a bus crash memorial, relating to the 1961 incident covered in the article, the biggest loss of life in a vehicle in Colorado ever, apparently. The article properly covers the community, the school, the crash, and it could be expanded if anyone from Greeley historical society chooses to develop more, say. Obvious keep, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Doncram. BTW @Doncram: Wikipedia:RX may help you obtain a copy of that article. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Doncram. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:44, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puritan, Colorado[edit]

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

Another siding, this one on a now-abandoned UP line to a now-abandoned mine— at least, that's what the topos say. From what I can tell the Puritan Mine was a couple of miles to the east; there's a small neighborhood to the northwest but it is at some distance, and it appears to be a subdivision; the neighborhood directly north is new. Searching is a little difficult but searching specifically for "Puritan Colorado" brings up clickbait and the tell-tale shipping rate hits of a siding. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this; I'm still a bit unhappy about the location but it's clear that the settlement did once exist. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The county website describes stores, houses, and people living there. This source describes 100 houses, a store, a boarding house and a pool hall. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See also similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auburn, Colorado where i !voted "Keep" too.--Doncram (talk) 05:03, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient black influence in early medicine[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of Ancient Egyptian medicine trying to present the point of view that Egyptians were black. Not useful as a redirect. Natureium (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Natureium (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. It is simply a discussion of well-attested ancient Egyptian influence on medicine, portrayed as a racial phenomenon by dressing it in the fringe and irrelevant assertion that ancient Egypt was 'black' (whatever that means). Ancient Egyptian medicine is sufficient, no matter what racial category one chooses to place them in. Agricolae (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and the per lead of the article which clearly states that the notion that Egyptian contributions = Black contributions is bunk. Especially since "Kemet = black community" is patently misleading, given most scholars thinks this refers to the black soils of the Nile, and not skin color. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nomination statement pretty much says it all. – bradv🍁 23:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I agree with everyone else but I wonder if there is any content in the section Ancient_black_influence_in_early_medicine#Ancient_medicine that deserves to be merged to some other article? (The section looks to be unique in not being about Egypt.) --JBL (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joel B. Lewis, perhaps to Traditional African medicine? – bradv🍁 00:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: Good suggestion, I have left a note on the talkpage there in case anyone thinks it has usable content. --JBL (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also the account that created this article [1] looks like a single purpose account to create the article and nothing else. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Psychologist Guy: That user's very first edits identify exactly who they were and what they were doing. --JBL (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –dlthewave ☎ 14:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a poor POV fork. The very title associates ancient Egyptians with being Black, but that normally refers to people of sub-Saharan Africa, not including Egypt. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:Education project gone bad. jps (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with above, very forky.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa, Colorado[edit]

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

I was unaware that "oldtimers in the area" counted as a reliable source, but in this case their testimony appears to be correct: this was a rail junction, and nothing more. (It's gone now.) There's a pipeline facility newly built to the southwest, and there are a couple of GBook search legitimate hits using it as a reference for the oil field, but searching is buried in false hits otherwise. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable rail junction. –dlthewave ☎ 04:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unincorporated community without evidence of notability. 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Lyman (American football)[edit]

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

No evidence that he meets WP:BIO or WP:NSPORTS. No reliable sources beyond the database listing in the article could be found. Fram (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I have said elsewhere, I think we should abandon the notion that any college coach is default notable, especially if they are not coaching NCAA Division I level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, neither the NCAA nor Division I existed in 1894, so those measures do not provide effective criteria for the sport's early era. Cbl62 (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, nobody is arguing that all college coaches are notable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. He was a head college football coach from 1894--NCAA Division I didn't exist until 1973, which is 79 years later.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the evidence that he passes GNG? It's not in the article. Fram (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we just disagree on that point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The college football project, in its appropriate mission of developing encyclopedic coverage of the sport, has undertaken to create and improve biographic articles on the head coaches of notable college football programs. See WP:CFBCOACH. While it may not be today, Doane in 1894 was a notable program. This is evidenced by its playing games against major opponents such as Kansas and Nebraska. Indeed, Lyman's 1894 Doane team defeated Nebraska, 12-0. On top of this, Lyman was reported to have played for Walter Camp (the Father of American football) for three years at Yale -- during a time when Yale dominated the game as consensus national champion in 1891 and 1892. It is difficult to find newspaper coverage from Nebraska in 1894 without going to hard copy volumes or microfilm in academic libraries. Some is found on Newspapers.com, and I have added a bit of that to the article. Deleting this article would undermine the project's effort at encyclopedic coverage of the sport's earliest years and is IMO unwarranted. Cbl62 (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A project's effort, no matter how noble, doesn't trump the general guidelines and consensus (just like a project notability essay, no matter how widely supported within that project, has no real bearing on the AfD result). Your source claims that Lyman played for Yale for three years, without specifying the years or whether it was with Camp. He isn't listed in the rosters for 1892 or 1888 (the only Camp years we seem to have a roster for on enwiki), and he isn't mentioned in the articles on the intermediate years. Fram (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it is far easier to find newspaper sources for football players and coaches from the modern age. Sources for the early 1890s are difficult to uncover. Here, however, we do have reliable sources indicating he played football for Yale, one source indicating he played three years for the Yale team. He coached Doane in 1894 and played for a Salt Lake City team in 1893. That places his time at Yale sometime between 1888 and 1891. These were the years that Camp was head coach at Yale. Unfortunately, I do not have easy access to Yale rosters to specify precisely which of these years Lyman played. I will undertake some further searches when time permits, but I think it would be an error to delete this particular biography. Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what you are posting here is pure WP:OR, taking some crumbs from newspapers and trying to write a coherent story by filling in the blanks. If you don't have a source for the years or the coach, then it shouldn't be in the article like that. Fram (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The years of coaching are confirmed, it's the exact years that he played at Yale that are not known at this time--and they are not in the article. I do not see any original research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "he played for three years under Walter Camp on Yale's championship football teams. " Source: "Mr. Lyman played for three years on the Yale team", without any mention of which years (which would enable us to determine the coach), or under which coach. I'll correct the article to only have the known facts (the bits I remove may be correct, but we don't know). Fram (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a sensible edit, no objection.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG and coached at a top-tier team. Sources are well different in the 1890s. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paulmcdonald and Cbl62's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Lyman served as head coach at a major college program. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:50, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Wackerman[edit]

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

Former WP:G12 candidate, but the article was rewritten to avoid the COPYVIO. However, it doesn't make much of a claim of significance, and mainly attempts to gain notability from the subject's family members (notability is not inherited). A Google search brings up few WP:RS, most in connection with a not-notable CD this figure produced. Notability fail both of the music SNG and WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Think could even be speedy deleted under WP:A7 criteria. Unremarkable individual. Loksmythe (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably an attempted promotion for a minor studio musician who does not inherit notability from his brothers. Other than his own social media, he has received no coverage beyond basic listings in minor drummer directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect with history - Keep or redirect with history to Chad Wackerman, Brooks Wackerman, How to Write Love Songs or Kilowatt (album). --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not appear to be notable in his own right. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zuni, Colorado[edit]

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

This one took me aback when GMaps dropped me into heavily urbanized Denver (well, to be precise, Berkley). A trip into the topos explains all: this spot was always, more or less, in the city, but when they realigned the yards/etc. in the late 1950s, they labelled the western end of the yard leads "Zuni". Before then, the name doesn't appear on the map. At present it is, coincidentally, the location of the Clear Creek/Federal station on the RTD, but I don't see a redirect as pointful. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remain utterly baffled what induces people to create articles without bothering to do a smidgeon of research into their worthless copy-and-paste junk. It appeared between 1950 and 1958, with no evidence for the claim that it's a community. Here and here are the sources showing Zuni was a switch point ahead of the Utah Junction rail yard. Please if you cannot write something unique with significant coverage do not create the article! Even if the GNIS classification is not in error, not every named cluster of buildings is an independently notable place! Reywas92^Talk 22:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a railroad switch behind A&M Motorsports that not even A&M Motorsports knows about probably. Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Railroad switches are not notable populated places. –dlthewave ☎ 03:49, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan Baghdadi[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NMODEL. The references cited in the article are not independent of him. The subject's only claim to notability is his affiliation with notable brands. Working with notable brands doesn't make one notable because notability cannot be inherited. The page creator has a long history of creating articles about non-notable people. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. There are few sources here and there but none of them are independent. I found one piece by Guardian but it was just a passing by mention. Mostly PR. Lunar Clock (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all press is paid. Doesn't pass WP:NBASKETBALL as I can find no record of him ever playing for the Iranian national team and actually cannot find any mention of him playing the sport outside of said paid articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete : As per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 13:08, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fejiro Hanu Agbodje[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The references cited in the article are all primary sources; none of them are independent of the subject. All of the startup companies the subject started are not notable. The article is pretty much a promotional piece. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - much of it makes no sense. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nahshon Dion Anderson[edit]

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

This article was created by a now-blocked editor with a pretty questionable history of promotional editing (the photo added, in turn, by another such editor), suggesting promotional editing has been integral to the creation and maintenance of this article. The biography is a good example of a BLP that outwardly contains copious references that disguise the questionable notability of the subject. Taking the references in the article as they stand:

There's no evidence any of the awards, grants, and fellowships convey notability. None of them are prestigious national honors if we were evaluating via WP:ACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST; the closest probably being the Lambda residency and VONA pick, but even there she is one of many selected annually (more than sixty in her year), and doesn't indicate a singular honor.
- Likewise, evaluating via WP:ARTIST, the article does not demonstrate notability via established, demonstrated contributions to a field or critical body of work (they have only contributed to books, none apparently published with them as the sole or main author.)
What's left is evaluating via the GNG. Most of the sources do not meet the significance threshold required, leaving only a single source where Anderson is the main subject, a Rolling Out interview. I don't really think this meets the reliable source threshold; I cannot find any readily available masthead or staff on its site, and it appears the founder/publisher is an author, so it comes off as more a blog than anything else (the "Steed Media Group" that publishes it is apparently just the founder.) A query to WP:RS/N suggests agreement that it doesn't meet RS requirements.

I'm left with the opinion this is a promotional biography of an artist who has not gained enough coverage to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. There's also issues with references being used that don't appear to support the text (In 2001 she moved to Fort Greene and worked for The Bachelor Pad and Trace (magazine) on The Black Girls Rock issue is cited to [2], Starting in 2002, Anderson spent over a decade honing her seduction and copywriting skills as a sex worker soliciting clients by advertising erotic massage in the LA XPress newspaper and on Eros, Craigslist and Backpage. is cited to [3], neither appear to mention Anderson.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article subject left a comment here with a couple of extra sources. One, the LA Times source, is a passing mention of no use for wikipedia and can be ignored. The Denver Voice source appears to be a solid, in-depth article, but from a newspaper dedicated to helping homeless in Denver. It appears to have a small editorial staff, but I don't think it even qualifies as a small regional source. The other source mentioned is Bronx Times - it's a short but decent article on Shooting Range. The question is the nature of the source - again, at best it appears to be a small regional source. All-in-all, three sources mentioned and one is maybe useful here. Undecided at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further general comment - there has definitely been some promotional edits around this article, as David Fuchs noted. See [4], [5], [6] as examples. There have absolutely been clear efforts to use Wikipedia as a means to promote Anderson. Ravensfire (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like more discussion about the sources found by Ravensfire
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(I didn't include the Bronx Times or Denver Voice sources as worthy of mentioning because as Ravensfire points out one is a local source and the other is likewise a local advocacy source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article published by Fergus Falls Daily Journal was never mentioned www.fergusfallsjournal.com/lifestyle/springboard-for-the-arts-welcomes-writer-to-residency/article_b5b7ca7b-8dce-5ffd-b056-fc05898259c1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootingrange78 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete based on the analysis from Fuchs, and further analysis of sources provided by Shootingrange78 which were very niche or very small, local circulation, which doesn't support help support WP:GNG. It's just not there. Ravensfire (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is The Advocate a national magazine February 2000.

https://books.google.com/books?id=smMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=advocate+Nahshon+Dion+Anderson+2000+rose+parade+arrested&source=bl&ots=Tvz2u5N0Wf&sig=ACfU3U2r4-HK5tcVzSa6Sopsp1YXiDiKxg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiti_rZoMfiAhVOhOAKHUknCWkQ6AEwCXoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=advocate%20Nahshon%20Dion%20Anderson%202000%20rose%20parade%20arrested&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootingrange78 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a passing mention. Again, what's needed is significant coverage from a good reliable source - not fringe, not small coverage, not an interview. See the points the Fuchs made in their analysis and just as importantly, read the Wikipedia policy pages linked to in that analysis. Ravensfire (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - she has had some publicity over the years. I'm a fan of the Bronx Museum, but I'm not sure it's considered a major collection. Is there a possible redirect target? Bearian (talk) 18:12, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Venshi[edit]

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

Has directed two feature films. Can't find sufficient news coverage about him. This was the strongest, but it's an interview, basically. Fails WP:GNG. Alternatively, redirect to Putani Safari. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability and full of unreliable sources. Koridas (Speak?) 02:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If he had passed WP:THREE, I may have given a second thought. Basically WP:GNG does not satisfy here. Lunar Clock (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR at best upcoming.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:56, 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. As, despite 2 weeks, there has been no discussion at all, I am closing this. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital (GYNMCH)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:33, 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Barnard[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Used to be a redirect until someone pasted this content yesterday. Couldn't find a single source that isn't a passing mention or a quote for an article on something else. He does not inherit SolarCity's notability. PK650 (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Loanpal. II | (t - c) 05:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a few more sources to the article. Many meet WP:SIGCOV including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 AntonNexa (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above. Mallardsfan19 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is of the companies, not the individual. Most of the links above are not RS. Subject doesn’t meet GNG or ANYBIO. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete: Per Nom, alternate redirect to Loanpal. I am amazed that editors don't realize and understand that WP:GNG (and WP:SIGCOV) states, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The first source I checked, Forbes, was the first one listed on the article and is certainly reliable. A "little" closer examination removed it completely from being "independent". The writer, David Levine, states "As the founder and CEO of Geostellar, a solar energy platform that has partnered with both SolarCity and SunRun". This means the writer acknowledges a WP:COI and very possibly would be biased. I checked the rest of the sources, and the six listed above, which led me to agree that these sources are either predominantly about the companies, or are interviews, which does not advance notability when the independence and primary source status cannot be determined. Otr500 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - With all due respect to User:Otr500 you're conflating two separate issues here. COI applies to people posting here on Wikipedia. The article itself, on Forbes, [7] may be considered non neutral, which, given the negative tone of it, if biased, it's on the negative side of things. However, I'd like to ask you to consider your vote, given that distinction. Especially given the light that article sheds on the negative side of the sales practices it shouldn't be buried, and in fact, I wonder if any of these votes to keep are trying to whitewash the record of Mr. Bernard. Certainly, only having a page on a "newly" positive company, without looks at the past issues with those companies, presents a much more favorable historical viewpoint, and I'd think we'd prefer something that accurately reflects the "interesting" and exploitative track record of the industry, and letting it slide b/c of a technical argument strikes me wrong. 173.62.197.204 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am astonished by the extent to which editors here are willing to distort long-established standards to press for deletion of articles whose sourcing meets GNG requirements despite those editors' belief that the subject should not be notable. Neither the GNG nor BLP policy limits Wikipedia coverage to celebrity biographies. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, when you recover from the astonishment, perhaps you can tell us which WP:THREE sources provide in-depth, independent, secondary coverage of the individual and not of the companies. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the first week had widely diverging views, I think more discussion is needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's is definitely problem with the sources. Loanpal is notable but notability isn't inherited. I'm struggling to find sources that are not passing by refs. Most of the references are related to company. Lunar Clock (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources on the page should be enough for notability as required by both wp:gng and wp:basic. Frankly, I'd like to see a much more detailed article on all the solar shenanigans and the impact it had on us installers, so why are you arguing to delete, and let him avoid accountability for his role in a variety of the financial disasters. wp:sigcov “significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” The individual has received more than trivial mentions in many of the references listed in the article with the main topics of the sources being irrelevant for the sigcov case here. per wp:basic, “if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. Clearly this individual has received coverage from many different independent sources, in varying contexts and not limited to just his involvement with the loan pal company. just to point out a few, among many more: [8] [9] [10] 172.249.121.208 (talk) 19:34, 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 redirect to National Land Commission#Composition. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabale Tache Arero[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage. No evidence of passing WP:NBIO. I am not seeing anything that's both in-depth and reliable. A merge has been suggested in an edit summary by editor who removed the PROD but with no specific article. We don't usually merge biographies into other pages, so I don't see a good target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the article properly. That is an essential part of WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 15:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Did you? I am not seeing you even voting keep here, which does say something about this being a lost cause. And you still have not clarified what that supposedly valid merge target would be. Do go on. So what's your contribution to this discussion outside of commenting about an editor instead of a said article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did. That is why I could identify a merge-option as alternative for plain destruction. The Banner talk 08:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National_Land_Commission#Composition where she gets a mention (and unlink her in that article). PamD 08:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the suggestion. If someone else had clearly specified this as a target, we wouldn't need to discuss things here. I am fine with your solution, and support speedy redirect and close for this nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL, properly reading the article would have been enough to get the same idea but as always it has to be spoon-fed to you. The Banner talk 13:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you redirected it yourself... but where's the fun in being polite and constructive, eh? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Where is the fun in doing your work accurate and constructive? It is your dodgy PRODding that brings you into hot water. All those bad PRODs are very unpolite towards other editors. The Banner talk 10:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep this the head of a major government agency who is clearly notable... please,please stop with this trigger happy nonesess ot trying to delete everything. Piotrus's desire here is to not be constructive per the comments above. Sadads (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop with your personal attacks. WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid keep argument, and ad hominens are even less. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - They aren't personal attacks when your declared intention is not being constructive and cooperate, and I am pointing out the pattern of failed logic that keeps emerging in these discussions, where on multiple occasions now you have not done due diligence on searching for Reliable Sources, even doing a pointed attempt at deleting a clearly notable article I started. Its reached a point of disruption, and attempts at wearing down members of the community who are not able to spend as much time as you are WikiLawyering, as you are, Sadads (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. By the progress of discussion here, this article should not have been prodded. It is one of many that were unnecessarily prodded, then AfDd. Let's all start using using merge to/merge or, in some cases, AfD but without Prodding. Prod is when no objections (but the creator) are to be expected. When deletion is a no-brainer. As off yet, I do not see one person but nom who proposes to delete. We undercover Kenya and the rest of Africa, we undercover women, and there are some sources in the article. When a a merge proposal will be submitted, I'll reconsider. gidonb (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I located 4 Kenyan news articles that just named her. Here they are [11],[12],[13],[14]. I don't think she should have a dedicated page. Maybe redirect as suggested ealier? GizzyCatBella🍁 03:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Land Commission#Composition. Unfortunately, I could not find any coverage in reliable secondary sources more extensive than a passing mention, and as such she does not pass GNG. In relation to the National Land Commission, the Chairman of that organisation does not have an article, and the members of the commission who do are notable for being elected to Kenya’s parliament, not for anything they have done with the commission. Therefore, I do not think that being the acting CEO of it confers automatic notability onto her. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fmatovu has done a lot of great work for Africa and generally has a good idea of what to start. Could use some extra sources though,♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- The fact that they did a lot of good job elsewhere is not very relevant. If any of my articles was deleted, I'd not think it should be kept with arguments that I did good job on many others. Anyway, would be nice if User:Fmatovu would comment here. The more input the better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National_Land_Commission#Composition where she gets a mention (and unlink her in that article). Has not established notability outside the NLC association. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow more discussion and generate more obvious consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think best to redirect to the National Land Council article, unless it can be shown she has done other notable work or is notable for some other reason. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:48, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Platts[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. She has never been elected and all references in the article are primary and offer nothing help her pass WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN County level of government is not enough to meet these criterias. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brighton and Hove is not a global city for the purposes of clinching the "inherent" notability of its city councillors just because they exist as city councillors, but this relies entirely on primary sources rather than any evidence of the reliable sourcing it would take to get her over WP:NPOL #2, where the test is "who have received significant press coverage". Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She worked as the key aid for Jeremy Corbyn (Leader of the UK Labour Party) and has been elected at the provisional level now leading a city in the UK. She is the equliviant of the mayor, Brighton and Hove is a global city in specific areas (LGBT, Tourists etc), and in national level hosting the political party and trade union conferences it has political significance. The article does relies on primary sources, but I have only added it and myself and others are in the process of compiling reliable sourcing it would take to get her over WP:NPOL. She has recived coverage in nemerous national newspapers and often writes for national labour and trade union blogs. Lloyd rm (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "global city" status is not liberally conferred on just any city that can claim to have status in some particular domain like tourism — it applies only to cities that are ranked as such by a certain specific group of multinational organizations. The "global city" criterion for city councillors applies only to cities that are ranked as global cities by one of the organizations explicitly named in our article on the global city concept — if you don't see it listed under the Alpha, Beta or Gamma classes in Globalization and World Cities Research Network, then it's not a global city for NPOL purposes no matter how much you argue that it has status in some other domain that falls outside of the ranking criteria used by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network.

Secondly, working as an aide to a national party leader is not an WP:NPOL-passing role.

Thirdly, arguing that "leader of the city council" is somehow equivalent to "mayor" doesn't change as much as you think either — even mayors aren't handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist as mayors, and still have to show a substantial volume of more than purely local coverage before they're deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think council leaders pass notability criteria. Especially a large one like Brighton & Hove (MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2020

No, they don't. People pass NPOL #2 only if they have a broad range of nationalizing coverage in real media, and no position on a city council, not even "leader of the council" confers an automatic inclusion freebie on a councillor who hasn't been shown to have a broad range of nationalizing coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 18 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} 02:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL, NPOL. Brighton/Hove is about as important a city to world travel as Cherry Grove, New York/Fire Island Pines, New York. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Reynolds[edit]

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

No notable wrestler, fails WP:GNG. Only worked on a regional level HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a former four-time NWA World Junior Heavyweight Champion, which is actually really notable. Analog Horror, (Speak) 03:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't WP:NOTINHERITED. The NWA between 1997 and 2002 was under a very obscure period. Between that years the NWA barely received coverage since it worked on a regional level. Most of the champions (like other Jr. Heavywegith champions Vince Kaplack, Star, Brother Love, Jerrelle Clarck or Kevin Douglas) aren't notable.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lack of comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:26, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Telus Cup alumni who played in the NHL[edit]

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

List does not assert notability and provides no sources. I cannot locate independent sources to satisfy WP:LISTN for a standalone list. Flibirigit (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: How hard did you actually look? I found sources no problem. I am in the process of finding more. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I found do not indicate that playing in the event in a notable occurrence that warrants having a list of such persons. Simply because it can be verified that a person participated, does not make such a list notable. Flibirigit (talk) 23:49, 15 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} 02:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Olympics maybe, but nobody links the Telus Cup with the NHL. Plus that would open the floodgates to every other minor competition. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Sandstein 21:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Government Post Graduate College of Commerce[edit]

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

No coverage. Delete per WP:TNT, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lack of comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 02:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:25, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cosmic[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim even being attempted here is that he made music for a TV channel, but that doesn't pass NMUSIC #10 as he did so as one member of a band rather than as a solo artist, and even if he had done it as a solo artist he would still have to have garnered media coverage about it to become notable for it — but of the seven footnotes here, four are to his own self-published Bandcamp profile, one is to the self-published website of a band he was in, and the other two are to online music stores, which means exactly zero of them are to reliable or notability-supporting sources. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Also probable conflict of interest, as the creator's username matches the name of one of the bands the subject was a member of. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, could not find enough RS. Caro7200 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough significant coverage or reliable sourcing. Koridas (Speak?) 14:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Landing, Louisiana[edit]

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

River landing with two buildings on topos, no GBooks or newspapers.com results for this to indicate this neighborhood is a notable community (there's a Neal's Landing in FL) Reywas92^Talk 19:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of a populated place here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:41, 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. Sandstein 21:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of OYP sessions[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced (the only footnotes are clarifying notes, not sources) list of individual sessions of a youth organization's annual meeting. This is not the kind of content we should be keeping without proper reliable source coverage in real media to support it. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not certain any of this is notable. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, been here since 2012, would have thought that it would have had some references by now, but apparently not. >>BEANS X2^t 20:20, 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 delete. Sandstein 21:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Massey[edit]

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

No evidence of notability through WP:BEFORE, and the article has been inappropriately sourced for a number of years through just IMDB. No evidence of potential to improve the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no coverage in reliable sources, the subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ACTOR. Less Unless (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though the subject has starred in a few films, the films themselves don't appear to be very notable at all. I don't think she meets WP:NACTOR, and I don't think WP:GNG is made out, either. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:39, 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. Sandstein 21:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Penlington[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 Everton were made in wartime football. Beatpoet (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:44, 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. Sandstein 21:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroyuki Moriyama[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get results for an architect and a scientist with the same name, but nothing reliable for the artist. The fr.wiki article is just a translation of the en.wiki one. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is listed in Benezit. I managed to find a few sources, but the coverage is not significant. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:02, 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. Sandstein 21:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Mernit[edit]

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

She doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, and has been tagged as such for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find enough sources. Few sources that mention her are not independent of her. Lunar Clock (talk) 11:54, 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. Sandstein 21:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Consortium of Secondary STEM Schools[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject fails ORG and GNG. IMO, the existing article should be titled "List of members of the National Consortium of Secondary STEM Schools", an even less notable topic. John from Idegon (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:09, 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. Sandstein 21:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasah Tsanawiyah Negeri Tuban[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY in my opinion, but borderline as schools often are notable. Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I cannot see from this article or from a Google search[15] why this specific Junior High School is notable. –Austronesier (talk) 18:12, 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. Sandstein 21:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zatopeks[edit]

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

I couln't establish tht they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Record labels don't seem significant enough or coverage enough, but very borderline. Deleted at 2008 AfD. Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite that band's long history I can find no reliable media coverage beyond a few fan-written reviews, record company promotional announcements, and gig listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:22, 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. Per WP:SNOW, and the nominator is already blocked. There is an overwhelming majority in favor of keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP, which applies to both living and recently deceased people. Recentism and completely unnecessary. This will grow out of hand and become unworkable, even if it's just a tiny fraction of the 945,000 living people on Wikipedia. This is best managed by self-maintaining categories from individual articles. Dollywares (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has 17 edits on Wikipedia., of which two are in the article space. One is adding the template to the article for this nomination, another one is obvious vandalism [16].--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Dollywares (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

That is inflammatory and a personal attack. It has no place in an AfD debate. Please stick to the merits of this discussion. Dollywares (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator, not quite unsurprisingly, has been blocked as a sock. My text which they removed above calling it a personal attack was that we do not show good faith towards vandals.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my first reaction is WP:NOTNEWS and we have seen this movie before (It ends in deletion). Not really the job of our encyclopedia to have a dynamic list which will stretch into the millions, or perhaps billions. And what criteria is there for being on this list? i.e. all deaths? prominent deaths? ~~I will withhold my !vote until I see what arguments other editors make.~~ Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that from the edit summary that this was an attempt to recreate a list after a contentious AfD and deletion review ended with a firm delete. Trout to the creator for circumventing the procedures to recreate an article/list that will waste valuable editor time rehashing protracted arguments. Lightburst (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a quote of the closing statement of the previous AfD is "Ultimately there is a consensus that a list of deaths would be notable and comply with other policies and guidelines if adequately sourced (though note that WP:BLP does apply to the recently deceased)."--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@Lightburst: are you referring to this deletion discussion? if so, I don't think the editor created a duplicate list at all. The subject of deleted list is people with COVID-19, where as this list is people who died from COVID-19. I'd argue that the difference between a list of living people with this virus (and fluidity in sources) and a list of dead people because of the virus is that of night and day. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you. I still maintain it is WP:NOT the job of an encyclopedia to create or maintain an incomplete list with arbitrary inclusion or exclusion criteria. NLists should be focussed. I will think on it some more. It seems that these Carona lists and articles are popping up like Pokémon articles. Lightburst (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is very generic and applies to almost any list, take List of 20th-century women artists. The only option compatible with our policies is to only include notable persons and, in particular, to disalow redlinks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my original nomination to reflect what is being discussed on the talk page, that any deaths even tangentially related to the pandemic should be included (e.g. drank bleach or committed suicide). Dollywares (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be rather disingenuous. There was a question raised on the talk page as to whether deaths tangentially related to the pandemic, but it was never presented as a proposal and has little support. The likelihood of it ever happening will be virtually removed if the proposed article move, which has majority support, is acted upon. Kevin McE (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inspiring filler creation (requiring more deletion later). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It clearly follows WP:SALAT/WP:LISTPEOPLE, in line with lists such as List of people who died by hanging and List of people who died on the toilet (didn't know the latter was so common...). Recentism? perhaps, yet so is literally everything related to COVID-19. I'd also question whether WP:BDP really is an issue here -- not only are the deaths verified by reliable sources, but rather 'dying from COVID-19' doesn't exactly strike me as being something salacious. FWIW, I personally was curious to see which notable individuals passed away due to the virus, and evidently the 7,000 daily readers are curious too. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you recognized one yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: yes, unfortunately. Mark Blum, actor, and "repeat offender" of the Law & Order franchise. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the one entry that gave you what you came for made you sad. Did the other seventy just disappoint? Or something better? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This virus has clearly developed a rich taste for the arts, so if anything I'm surprised. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would've supported deletion of the other article, but this seems much more manageable and appropriate (as well as inevitable). We're already seeing this supported by lots of reliable sources treating this subject as a group, covering SALAT/LISTPEOPLE. Certainly limit the list to those well-supported by reliable sources, and to notable people with articles, but beyond that I don't see a problem here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin The nonimator has been recently re-active on Wikipedia for only AFD, see also other editor's comment on his talk page. The user's last edit was in 2018 and back recently. Isn't this strange? So, we need check user for this user. Thanks 37.111.43.38 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling edit: Like -Ymblanter has pointed out. I too found this edit by the nominator curious and potential vandalism. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Less time spent with ad hominems and more time actually addressing the merit of the deletion discussion would be of a benefit to everyone, I'd say. As several editors have already weighed-in, attempting to short-circuit the afd on technical grounds would be rather contentious. Zaathras (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. I agreed with the nominator so - attempting to short-circuit afd on technical grounds seems unlikely. carry on. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT. Note that I voted delete for the other, more broad article "List of people with coronavirus disease 2019". At that discussion, I argued Changing the title won't change the underlying fact that a list of people who contracted a common disease is not encyclopedic, and has the potential to balloon into an indiscriminate list of trivia. However, deaths are relatively rare, and much easier to source and track. Also, based on the comments above evidencing other questionable edits by the nominator, I am unsure whether this is a good faith nomination. epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not at all convinced that the group of persons who have died from COVID-19 is itself notable. The pandemic and the casualties in general (i.e. the numbers, the locales etc...) have obviously been discussed at length, but the celebrity/famous deaths have by & large? No. Leave the mentions to their respective biographical articles. Zaathras (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is not trivial and definitely encyclopedic, so it meets WP:SALAT. I do think the stringent criteria of already having a WP article should be retained, as the list could become unwieldy with red links otherwise. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons detailed by others above. Meets WP:NLIST, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE. User:MelbourneStar puts it well in their explanation. (Additionally, where there was no consensus on the "List of people WITH it" discussion, there was definitely a consensus to keep a well-sourced "List of DEATHS from COVID-19" page.)Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If/when this grows to a point where the list becomes unmanageable as the nominator says, then we can discuss splitting it as appropriate. "This will be a long article someday" is not a reason to delete a worthwhile page. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I can see this being a complicated list, what are all the qualifiers here to be included on the list? Will the pandemic last in to 2021?? A whole year? That could include a lot of people. For that I think the list could fail due to content size. Then I suggest Deletion. I really don't like the morbid nature of this list, however we seem to have these things on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Govvy Category:Lists of people by cause of death has lists related to disease, overdose, suicide, execution, genocide, murder - all morbid. WP:NOTCENSORED. Most of those lists are huge as well. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agreed with deleting the list of infected as for most people it is an illness of minor length and seriousness. Cause of death however is obviously more notable for a person's biography. Category:Lists of people by cause of death includes several lists which are far longer and far less related to each other - List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication is a colossal Featured List. The BLP concern is not an argument, reliable sources are required for every page on Wikipedia and there are lists of deaths where the cause would be much more stigmatised, such as the aforementioned drug overdose page or List of HIV-positive people (also featured list) Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really can't see any rationale for it to be deleted at this point - we have other similar lists of people by cause of death, and this one can be further updated in real time, which is useful. Furthermore, I've been checking it every day, and I see others have been as well. So from that (admittedly narrow) perspective alone, it's something people are interested in, and should be kept accordingly. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please I think this is important data worth consolidating in one place and referring to, to shore up what the pandemic's losses might add up to over weeks and months - I agree that there are other similar lists of people by cause of death, and this one can be further updated in real time, which is useful. I want a reference like this. - Jeanmarine2 - 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep Of great interest. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly relevant and useful. Will continue to be relevant and useful long after the pandemic is over. Exactly the sort of information that should be and is aggregated on Wikipedia. Brycehughes (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable deaths is fine and manageable unlike the list of everybody with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I look at this list every day. Lots of people are looking at it. That alone makes it worthy of keeping. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per all of the above. Clearly defined criteria, non-trivial, able to be maintained, high readership. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and encyclopedic. No clear rationale behind this deletion request. Azerty82 (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to keep the list, based on the criteria in Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE, and in comparison with other such lists.–Jérôme (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly relevant and encyclopedic list. Why would we intentionally make it more difficult for our readers to find encyclopedic information about a topic of extreme importance? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per all of the above. --IndexAccount (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are all notable people who died prematurely in the greatest disaster of our generation. It is fitting and appropriate to record their passing. In the event of growth, the article may be split as necessary. WWGB (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if that happens then we can think about it at that point. Not now. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should be a snow keep. Not in violation of any notability policies for lists. Spiderone 10:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may be this can be something historically needed! MM17^(discuss) 11:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it would be good to stop blindly following arbitrary Wikipedia blahblahblah rules and instead think of the common interest for society. This is an article that will help to inform people and make them take the virus more seriously. Why is it that so many articles about irrelevant writers or people who starred in 1 porn movie in 1971 are kept, but not a list of victims of an ongoing pandemic? I truly don't get the logic of Wikipedians. I hope that you guys will follow the path of wisdom. --Spafky (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered how the overwhelming majority of preceding Wikipedians are blahblahblahing with you, at least as far as this society's arbitrary rules and common interest goes? Also, there is kept a list of ongoing pandemic victims. Because we listen to Wikipedians, not logic (it's all good). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Have not seen any real argument against this article's usefulness or notability, only vague ideas that it will become unmanageable at some point in the future. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 16:42, 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. Sandstein 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logan (illustrator)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. No French language article and this has sat in CAT:NN for 12 years. He was successful, but not enough to pass notability threshold. Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable comics artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 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. Sandstein 21:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 1 housemates[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (British series 19) housemates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 1) housemates and all other series which were recently deleted I'm nominating all the lists of housemates in the Australian series for the same reasons. Firstly pretty much every contestant is non notable, even with the level of sourcing, is still an undue level of biographical profiling and fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. Secondly, the amalgamated list, without all of the profiling, can be found under List of Big Brother (Australian TV series) housemates and links to the very few notable names can be accessed from there. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (seasons 2 and 3 do not have articles):

Delete all the pages above - 100% agree with Ajf773 (talk). The series themselves need a page, but not the housemates as nobody remembers them nowadays. Even I can only remember 1 housemate fully after having watched all the Australian series, and he already has a Wikipedia page here. If they're notable enough, they deserve a page, but having a list of all former housemates is irrelevant as given above. Springyboy (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous AfDs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. not much else to say, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non notable list of non notable people. At best merge any relevant bio details to the season article where a list of the people already exists. Aoziwe (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and all previous AfDs (and my personal arguments there). @Ajf773: you missed List of Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 11 housemates. --Gonnym (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym:, thanks for letting me know, I've included this in the article too. Ajf773 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability at all. Just a list of people who don't even have their own page. Koridas (Speak?) 16:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just include their names in the appropriate season. Gnan garra 04:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all nothing of note here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 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. Sandstein 21:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Klong[edit]

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

Successful musician, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sole source is a paid obituary. This is almost a Copyright violation, as the essence of this article is simply a rewording of the obit to avoid outright plagiarism. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:28, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Kagaras[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and thus WP:GNG. None of the current sources are good. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked in Greek but did not find solid RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:14, 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 no consensus. Bordering on keep. Sandstein 21:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usama Riaz[edit]

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

memorial page not notable before death Redsky89 (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources and the highest award recieved by him posthumously. What is mean by 'not notable before death'? Störm (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Störm - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk)
Delete A posthumous award does not automatically elevate an unknown person into the stratosphere of notability. If all one can say about a person is "this was his job, he died, then was awarded something", then editors should use a bit of common sense that the Award section of WP:ANYBIO is a guideline, not a policy. This is a case where a guideline should be set aside. Zaathras (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article can be expanded for sure. passes WP:GNG,BabbaQ (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Storm. — Hammad (Talk!) 05:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Keepers arguments. Yes, I believe one ultimate sacrifice is putting your own life at risk in order to help save others' lives. All over the world, plenty of examples are there – Purple Heart Award in the United States where a previously unknown soldier becomes well-known due to his services to his homeland. Besides, this article already has 3 'RS' working references. In my view, it should not even be on AfD. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete person does not pass for notability are there any sources written about him before his death? did they make a medical discovery? did they write a book? the article only says that they died doing their job. dying is not a form of notability. sorry if thats the case then every doctor and nurse that dies have to have a wiki article made. 24.45.37.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Low-efffot nom & a low-effot anon !voting. You seem like you're repeating/expanding on what the nom said. Hm. dying is not a form of notability: No, it's not. But surely being awarded the Nishan-e-Kashmir is? >>BEANS X2^t 11:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person had no access to adequate medical protection, but went Above and Beyond the Call of Duty in significantly increased risk to improve chances for patients. See Kious Kelly. TGCP (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yup, notable. Needs expanding, sure, but deleting the article is likely to have the opposite effect. Just because he wasn't notable during his life, doesn't mean that he can't be notable after death. >>BEANS X2^t 11:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is, by most accounts, Pakistan's first notable coronavirus casualty and the coverage is extensive, therefore cannot be compared to non-notability. Furthermore, being awarded the highest civil award by the state of Azad Kashmir (despite posthumous) in recognition is not a small feat. Mar4d (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps borderline, but not an obvious candidate for deletion. Google News results in English as well Urdu language suggest sufficient coverage therefore keep per WP:SIGCOV. --Saqib (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. 1) Reliable sources only cover Riaz in the context of the event of his death. 2) Riaz was a low profile individual before his death. 3) Riaz's death—while tragic—was not significant.

I guess an argument against this would be that being awarded the Nishan-e-Kashmir is a separate event than his death, but I disagree with this. Another would be that being awarded the Nishan-e-Kashmir posthumously revoked his status as a non-public figure, but I do not believe this meets the criteria for WP:LPI. userdude 08:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Coverage is all relating to his death which in itself is not notable. Alex (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if he was borderline before death, the numerous tributes after death show notability. Compare this to the soldier who died in Kashmir. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Pakistan per userdude. The death is not notable, the argument for the civil award would make sense but its not even a national level award. Gotitbro (talk) 07:09, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Loveline episodes[edit]

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

Per WP:RPRGM this entirely list of radio episodes is non notable, and almost entirely original research and WP:FANCRUFT. This follows on from the previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Loveline episodes hosted by Adam Carolla Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are all split from the parent article:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This is pure listcruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How these pages have managed to survive nearly a decade is beyond me. Thanks Ajf773 for following up after my nom of the first. Pure WP:FANCRUFT and no evidence of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant see how these lists are notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 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 redirect to Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran. Sandstein 20:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alam Saleh[edit]

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

I am reviewing this new page and the subject does not meet N:PROF. No named chair or distinguished award etc. The article is based on a couple of book reviews. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ There might be an argument for notability under WP:NAUTHOR based on multiple reviews of his work, but to be honest a single book being reviewed in a couple of relevant journals is pretty routine for an academic. I could be persuaded to change my view if there is strong evidence for a pass at NPROF criterion 1, but I'll also note that I am concerned that with whole unreferenced paragraphs, there may be a lot of OR, and much of the language is very puffy, giving a rather promotional tone overall. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised that a chunk of the text was directly copied from Lancaster uni's website. I've cut it and revdelled; I can't see a source for the rest of the text, but it is still very promotional and may have come from an offline source or something I can't find. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect per David below - good call. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran. With only one book and low citation counts [17], he passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR. But with four published reviews listed in its article, his book is notable enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per David Eppstein. The book appears more wiki-notable than the author. XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks everyone I agree with the proposal to redirect - should have thought of it myself. Is that sufficient consensus for me to withdraw the nomination or should I let it run to see if there are other views? Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His work is reviewed in independent sources, then he is notable according to GNG. He is also a Fellow of Higher Education Academy. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- FHEA is by no means selective enough for WP:PROF#C3. And if one of his works is notable, it doesn't automatically imply that he is notable; see WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying his works (his views) are covered by reliable sources, then he is notable. It does not have anything to do with inheritance.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we had multiple works (books), covered by multiple reliable sources each, I might agree. I just don't think one is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why he should have multiple works to be notable. I don't think such a presumption exists in the guidelines. There are many people who are notble for only one work. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethnic Identity and the State in Iran. Does not pass WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR.But maybe a search term hence redirect is better then deletion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:41, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Alaa Mubarak[edit]

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

attempt at claiming notability through his grandfather DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here makes him notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, was previously deleted per WP:A7. This version is more expanded, but it's essentially the same content but refbombed. I don't read Arabic, but the sources seem to be more about the subjects grandfather, not the subject. Notability is not inherited. Additionally, the subject's soccer career falls far from meeting WP:NFOOTY and WP:COLLATH, too. Hog Farm (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Falls well short of inclusionary standards for both soccer players and college athletes as a whole. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:08, 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. Clear consensus to keep. Michig (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Tsang[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet any speedy criterion, but I suggest a snow delete as a blatant BLP ONEEVENT violation. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep popular TV actress back in the days. More should be added about her career. BTW, forename is incorrect, it should be 'Margie'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.220.45 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 孟欢欢 (2009-02-07). "热点评论：明星复出后冰火两重天(图)" (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2009-02-17. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
2. 黃一平 (2006-08-26). "曾華倩被逼供處女獻偉仔". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
3. Jennifer (2016-03-06). "她與梁朝偉有刻苦情友人爆料：當晚就獻身啦？". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
4. 程韵 (2004-09-14). "刘嘉玲曾华倩相逢泯恩仇笑谈"分享"梁朝伟". People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2008-06-02. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
5. 黃曉陽 (2009). "梁朝偉與曾華倩黎美嫻劉嘉玲的愛情糾葛" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. Archived from the original on 2016-12-29. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
6. 宋争 (2002-04-21). "曾华倩离婚内幕:专横独断婆媳不和[多图]". zh:东方网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
7. "中风前兆？梁朝伟初恋曾华倩脸部扭曲口齿不清". Sina Corp (in Chinese). 2018-05-22. Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Margie Tsang to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Controversies" section is undue weight and should be removed entirely or significantly trimmed.
I added some biographical information about her career after she signed a contract with TVB.
Cunard (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there is enough coverage to establish notability WP:GNG. As noted above, her name is incorrect. Margie Tsang and Margie Tsang Wah Sin are correct. Article should be improved, and not deleted. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have deleted the "controversies" section out of undue weight and WP:BLP concerns. I have also moved the article from Maggie Tsang to Margie Tsang. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:NACTOR. Assuming the Chinese sources listed above provide reliable and significant coverage, there shouldn't be any issue passing WP:GNG, either. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:45, 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 Speedy delete- AfD is not the right venue for drafts- you want MfD for those- but this draft has since been speedily deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5. (nac) Reyk _YO! 09:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sprindort Massacre[edit]

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

This person appears to be making up World War II hoaxes, as for one pages they made. The only source is to a food website. The first thing that comes up in Spanish is (Las 15 mejores comidas callejeras de Guatemala) The 15 best street foods in Guatemala? Does not seem like a reliable source for a World War II battle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castelnuovo Driverofknowledge (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Driverofknowledge (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close list at WP:MFD. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:28, 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. Confirmed NFOOTY pass. Fenix down (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ezeali Kingsley[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. All sources that mention subject significantly are autogenerated Sam-2727 (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, because he played in the Nigerian Prem league he passes WP:NFOOTBALL, the article needs a lot of work know to bring it up to standard, as of right now it's poor and would easily fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why would NSEASONS apply here? The article is a biography, not a club season page. Mightytotems (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he has played in the Nigerian Premier League then he would meet WP:NFOOTBALL. But I can't see any reliable sources confirming that. Giant Snowman 16:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Giant Snowman. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in the Nigerian Professional Football League. I can't find any indication that he's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - I'm going to assume that this coverage exists offline or inaccessible to my search efforts. Hack (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:15, 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 Withdrawn. There were two "delete"s, but they were added before the sources prompting the withdrawal were provided. Sandstein 20:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poster child[edit]

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

The lede is almost entirely unsourced WP:OR, and the one source in the lede is just an example of usage. The rest of the article is just a list of example usages. I spent a fair amount of time searching for good sources, but can't find any. There's certainly lots of stuff out there that uses the phrase "poster child" in passing, but I can't find anything that discusses it as a topic, which is what we need for a WP:BCA. Suggest this be turned into a soft redirect to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/poster_child -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. See my more specific comments down below. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. There's lots of periodical articles about the concept. I would not oppose a soft redirect. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a few references, I'd be happy to look at them. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. I would support a soft redirect to wiktionary as Roy suggests. — Wug·a·po·des 19:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This seems best covered in dictionary. WP:NOTDICT. Agree with nominator that we need WP:BCA for this topic here. Lightburst (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a case of original research. The sources do not discuss the generic concept of poster child but simply give examples from which the author(s) derive their own definition. Glendoremus (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assisted at an editathon recently which was specifically about such posters. I am quite sure that they are the subject of study because we had speakers lecturing about them. For an example of detailed coverage of the specific concept of the poster child, see The Making of Poster Children. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. It's certainly a much better source than what I've seen previously. If you (or Bearian) can come up with one or two more like that, I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some books about the concept:

This book describes a prototypical poster child on several pages.

This book describes whether certain disabled children are poster children or not. starting on page 262 ff.

This history book desfibes how the concept gained favor starting on page 255.

This book describes the first polio poster children in Chapter 21.

I used +"history" for my search terms. Bearian (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. The Longmore and Smart books are the best of those, going into some detail about the origin of the term. The Morgan-Owens and Nielsen books seem like just more examples. The article still needs work to improve the sourcing, but based on these, and the source found by QED above, I'm withdrawing my nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep withdrawn nomination WP:SKCRIT Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Nuckels[edit]

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

I'm not seeing notability in this article per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The sources merely mention him but are not about him. Google search does not bring up significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is established in multiple reliable sources that focus on the subject including Huffington Post^[1], New York Times^[2], Des Moines Cityview^[3], and AdWeek^[4].

References

^ "Pat Quinn Hires Ben Nuckels As Campaign Manager". The Huffington Post. 12 May 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
^ "The Pulse: New Manager for Quinn Campaign". New York Times. 7 May 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
^ "Iowa native manages Illinois governor's win". Des Moines Cityview. 9 December 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
^ "Strother Nuckels Strategies Tugs At Heartstrings for Airbnb". AdWeek. 20 September 2016. Retrieved 12 March 2020.

Delete Only some Trivial coverage in a RS does not make him notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 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 04:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish Landing, Louisiana[edit]

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

One of several river landings near Maurepas, Louisiana [18][19], but no indication this neighborhood is a notable community per Geoland2. No newspapers.com results for this. Reywas92^Talk 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our requirements for WP:GEOLAND#2. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable river landing. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 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. Michig (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasatul Islah[edit]

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

Non notable Islamic seminary. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of BEFORE. Madrasatul Islah is one of the oldest seminaries in UP. ~~Started~~ Improved by Islamic scholars of note Shibli Nomani and Hamiduddin Farahi. Produced notable scholars such as Wahiduddin Khan and Amin Ahsan Islahi. Discussed in Government of India text Centres of Islamic Learning in India. Important as an institution associated with the modernisation of Muslim education in early 20th Century South Asia (see p.131 of Mohammad Sharif Khan's Education, religion, and the modern age). Meets ORG. AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep,The seminary 112 years old and its foundation was laid by a notable muhaddith, Mian Asghar Hussain Deobandi along with other ulama. Many notable Muslim ulama served the seminary and I have added a number of references for the betterment of article. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 01:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations added to prove notability--Irshadpp (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong not started by Shibli Nomani and Hamiduddin Farahi.But by Maulana Muhammed Shafi and Maulana Abual Asad.[20] See page 37.Delete only one article in Indian express and mere one mention in each book fails WP:GNG.122.174.30.172 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the correction, but that actually reinforces my earlier point even further, since it links more notables to the school. Rechecking the source (p.131) I misinterpreted developed as founding. So we have two notable scholars involved in its improvement/redevelopment (Shibli Nomani and Hamiduddin Farahi). In terms who actually who founded the school, this seems more complex. "Abdul Ahad" (Servant of G-d) - not Abual Asad - is a relatively common given name and could refer to different persons which is not clear. With regard to Muhammad Shafi, I presume this is not Mian Muhammad Shafi, but another person with a similar name. However, further research (p.76) shows that the school's foundation was laid by Mian Asghar Hussain Deobandi and that the Muhammad Shafi referred to in this case was also the founder of Anjunwa-i-Islahul Muslimin. What is of concern here, however, is that this is another case of a notable institution or person related to Deobandi Islam being sent to AfD. --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, (Dr. Syed Jameel Hussain. Tazkirah Hazrat Miyan Saheb (in Urdu). Madrasa Islamia Asgharia, Deoband.} also mentions Mian Asghar Hussain Deobandi as the one who laid foundation stone of this madrassa. I have used the same reference on page about Mian Asghar's article. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 22:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Enough Citations have been added to the article and its notability is clearly proven. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Goldsztajn seems to have established a WP:THREE basis notability; and I'm pretty sure we could serve up more quality references if necessary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:34, 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. Or no consensus, take your pick. Sandstein 21:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Council on Rural Development[edit]

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

NGOs have a hard time meeting WP:NORG/GNG and this is not an exception. The article is primarily sourced to organization website and press releases. The NGO has some presence in media, but the news coverage is not about them, but about some initiatives they are involved in (ex. like this news piece from Vermont Public Radio) or comment on. I am not seeing how this NGO passes NORG, but I am happy to hear policy-grounded counterarguments. Or see better sources, all I am seeing are press releases and mentions in passing, nothing seems in-depth, independent and reliable (BEFORE was done in news, books and scholar; there are quite a few googlehits since they are a publisher too and are being cited). I can't think of a good redirect target, either. Frankly, as I said years ago on NORG, we should rewrite that guideline to be more permissive for NGOS, but since that didn't happen, I don't see what makes this org notable in the light of our current policies (NORG/GNG). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep really? 7 source, 4 of which are from the principle regional new sources, about a government sponsored agency, that is fundamental to the economic development of Vermont? This is harrasment by Piotrus: I have been commenting on deletion discussions, and suggesting that he is over applying a number of policies in order to try to enforce an unreal -- there is no other way that he would have found this unless he was stalking my new article creations. This is a clearly notable government sponsored body within Vermont, that place a vital role in the rural community -- this is outrageous, Sadads (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. I think that the nominator's statement "The NGO has some presence in media, but the news coverage is not about them, but about some initiatives they are involved in" is not compelling; naturally news coverage about an organization is going to focus on the initiatives they're involved in. In addition to the sources currently on the page, I found the following newspaper sources:
- "Council encourages Wilmington residents to set priorities" by Erin George, The Brattleboro Reformer (March 13, 2001)
- "Creative economy works in Vermont", editorial, The Burlington Free Press (April 15, 2006)
- "Getting creative with economics" by Lauren Ober, The Burlington Free Press (April 29, 2006)
- "Group thinks into the future" by Paul Costello and Sarah Waring (op-ed by the VCRD Executive Director and the VCRD Program Director of the Council on the Future of Vermont, Rutland Daily Herald (Dec 30, 2007)
- "Vermont's quiet crisis: Why we need an action plan for the working landscape" by Paul Costello, Rutland Daily Herald (Dec 26, 2010)
- "Creating a climate economy" by Jon Copans (op-ed by the director of the Climate Economy Model Communities Program at the VCRD), Rutland Daily Herald (March 3, 2017)

This is "local news coverage" in the sense that it's all in Vermont, but it's three different newspapers, and an organization that focuses on a specific state will get news coverage within the state. I believe that this demonstrates notability. I added the sources to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use these as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Please note, however, that op-eds and editorials usually don't carry much weight for notability (WP:N). Could you highlight two or three of those that carry the most significant news coverage? Jlevi (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, these are news coverage and not op-eds: "Council encourages Wilmington residents to set priorities" (Brattleboro Reformer, 2001); "Getting creative with economics" (Burlington Free Press, 2006); "Group thinks into the future" (Rutland Daily Herald, 2007). — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But neither of them discusses the organization much, it is just a brief report on some of their activities (holding rallies, supporting local businesses, etc.). We don't have a single source that goes beyond local news coverage (town level or so) that's more than 'local NGO does some nice stuff'. No source that would discuss the org in-depth, call it important and historical, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for basically the same reasons that the pigs... oinked? Here are a few more: https://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2020/january/02/vcrd-launches-climate-catalysts-leadership-program; https://www.reformer.com/stories/community-action-plan-advances-to-next-stage,596733; https://www.rutlandherald.com/news/local/vermont-council-on-rural-development-gathers-leaders-at-castleton/article_d1f529d9-64be-53f1-a7e4-f8f96a2c73a3.html; https://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/climate-leadership-program-launched,594376? https://vermontjournal.com/featured-articles/council-on-rural-development-gives-rockingham-task-forces-a-start/; That's plenty. --GRuban (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, the nominator's stance that they don't actually support the rule that they are using to nominate this article for deletion is ... troubling. We're supposed to not be a bureaucracy, and to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules when they would stand in the way of improving the encyclopedia. Inspector Javert is not supposed to be a role model at all, much less ours.--GRuban (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of those (very local, too) "sources" are effectively press releases or their rewrites (ex. [21] is 3/4 quoted direct PR; [22] is just a mirror)... plus, they generally don't cover the organization in-depth. They don't discuss when it was founded, its significance, milestones in development, etc. They are little better than WP:GOOGLEHITS. [23] is WP:INTERVIEW and as such not considered sufficient for establishing notability, since it is not independent. Those sources are quite low quality. Sorry, they org is doing a nice volunteer work, I respect them, but I still don't see how they meet NORG/GNG. If I missed something, if one of those sources is in-depth and independent, please be specific which one (and please quote, a lot of this stuff is paywalled). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 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 20:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amos, Louisiana[edit]

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

Topos show an Amos Cemetery but none support claim it "is an unincorporated community". Mentioned as a station in [24] but no buildings on 1935 topo. Likely connected to this Amos Kent [25] but no indication this is the name of a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 02:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our requirements for WP:GEOLAND#2. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 18:24, 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. The consensus is that sufficient sources appear in Estonian media. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bedwetters (band)[edit]

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

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

No significant coverage. None of their releases charted. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search showed no WP:SIGCOV for either. A PROD probably would have been enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This page was already PROD'ed in this edit. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band. It has pretty significant coverage in Estonian media, did you search it? https://www.delfi.ee/teemalehed/bedwetters - all news with mentions of the band in Delfi (web portal). It easily passes GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of the stuff in the link above is garbage, but there are some more detailed pieces scattered in there. Enough to pass GNG. To be fair to the nominator, the standard WP:BEFORE steps for an English wiki page are not going to do the best crawl through foreign language portals. Incorporating some of those news pieces would strenthen the article and make it clearer that coverage is out there, but they do WP:NEXIST at least.
I don't have a strong opinion on the album page, so ~~maybe WP:SOFTDELETE that page and let it be restored on request.~~ redirect it to the preserved band page per Atlantic306's recommendation as a WP:CHEAP WP:ATD. -2pou (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band article as per coverage in Estonian reliable sources but redirect the album to the band page, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point! Updating !vote above. -2pou (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Beep or Not to Beep[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. — Jeff G. ツ 02:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

visible ? Have you done a WP:BEFORE ? Atlantic306 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRedirect to Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner#List of cartoons, I could find one review for this, but it is from a user-generated website so it cannot contribute to notability. Here:[26] is the source if anyone can say otherwise. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC) changing my vote to Keep per the sources found by Toughpigs, while I am still a little iffy on the status of the first source given I cannot access it and it is not used to support all that much within the article, I will take them at their word that it helps this article pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added references from two sources, backing up real-world information in the article:
- Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies: A Complete Illustrated Guide to the Warner Bros. Cartoons by Jerry Beck and Will Friedwald, Henry Holt & Co (1989)
- "The Spotlight Cartoon Archive: To Beep or Not to Beep" by Jon Cooke, The Internet Animation Database

I also cut down the plot description quite a bit. I think that this helps to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Internet Animation Database a reliable source? I looked through the website, and it said that you must be a 'researcher' to add content like the review cited, but it also said "We're always looking for people who are either knowledgeable about animation or have access to studio records to help us find animation, this can be as simple as having video copies where credits can be found" under the 'Become a researcher' section. That sounds a lot like an open-access website, and it does not exactly look reliable. Also, the review in question is apparently reproduced from a defunct website called GAC, what was that exactly? Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Animation Database is a well-respected internet knowledge base. They've got a three-tier system for who can add to the site -- regular users can just post comments and ratings, researchers have special knowledge of animation, and admins curate the site. They specifically mention IMDb as an unreliable site that they don't want to model theirs on. :) You can read more here. The GAC was a "Golden Age of Cartoons" site that was also well-respected in its time; you can read more here. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmmm. I am willing to assume this nomination does not represent Jeff G.'s best work, and that they usually do a better job. I clicked on the handy search links above, and found that scholars wrote about this episode. Sorry Jeff G, but I think this nomination shows a clear lapse from compliance with WP:BEFORE. I added a couple of links to a couple of those articles. Geo Swan (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think enough has been identified to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Messy Thinking (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC) As long as the core details of the cartoon are preserved (and doesn't go off on any kind of TV Tropes tangent), this is a justifiable article. Hardly matters whether you used IAD, IMDb, TV Tropes, or any two, for your references.[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) 09:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Landing, Louisiana[edit]

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

River landing on 1966 topo at the site of the "Scott Lodge" on 1987 topo, no evidence it's a notable community. Please do not use the GNIS to write context-free articles! Reywas92^Talk 02:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our requirements for WP:GEOLAND#2. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign that this river landing is or was a notable populated place. On a sidenote, sometime between 1966 and 1986 every instance of "LDG" on the quad map was changed to "LODGE"; there's no reason to believe that there were lodges at these sites since none of them have buildings or road access. –dlthewave ☎ 18:19, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulla Strömstedt[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. — Jeff G. ツ 02:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep does not pass WP:NACTOR in her US roles but may do in the Swedish roles such as [this] film where she is second in the credits, she also has a supporting role in Catalina Caper. Also I can't work out what the article refers to when she was elected in Stockholm, if it was political or not, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found some in-depth write-ups about the subject in a couple of books: 1 at page 319, and 2 at page 316. (Although WP:NACTOR wasn't invoked, I think the subject's roles in Catalina Caper and Flipper (1964 TV series) meet criterion 1.) Dflaw4 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources cited above, she got a good amount of newspaper coverage in the US from 1965-1967. Here are three examples from Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and San Francisco Examiner. 1, 2, 3. I think she meets GNG and maybe narrowly WP:NACTOR as well. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:31, 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. The consensus is that this subject meets the criteria for inclusion. However, it should be noted that references should be found for this subject, if a future nomination is to be avoided. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic pants[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources, and no encyclopedic tone. — Jeff G. ツ 02:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is covered in numerous works about baby care such as the classic works by Spock. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsourced, but I feel I can guarantee that this is sourceable if one felt inclined do go digging (which I don't). This also goes for Rubber pants, BTW - same parlous state of sourcing. Makes one wonder who felt compelled to unload all this information without a single reference, lo these fifteen years ago. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:37, 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) 09:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Tendler[edit]

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

Minor League Baseball player who retired in January 2020; did not play above Double-A. No notable attributes (e.g. was not a first-round draft pick). Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 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. A redirect can be discussed and created separately if deemed useful. Sandstein 20:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Evans (hotelier)[edit]

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

Delete The only reason this article is here is because he has a famous spouse. Not notable. Every source listed has wife's name in title and primary article is about her. No explicit sources about Billy Evans. Andrew nyr (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All but one of the sources prominently mentions his wife or fiancee (whichever it is). His MIT reference lists his minor college accomplishments. Also, he's not a hotelier, his grandparents are. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarityfiend, you are an experienced contributor, so surely you must have encountered other individuals who are related to someone more famous, yet who still measure up to GNG themselves?
  Consider Elizabeth Windsor, current Queen of England, and her many descendants, and cousins, those who are numbered in the official list of succession... We don't shoehorn them all into the article on EW - those who measure up to GNG themselves get standalone articles. It doesn't matter whether an RS mainly covers the Queen, provided those RS also contain meaningful details about her descendant or cousin.
  Almost all of the first two dozen individuals on the UK list of succession have standalone articles, because they measure up to GNG. The last time I took a good look, approximately half the third and fourth dozen people on the list had established enough notability for a standalone article, but only about 10-15 percent of the next hundred had established notability.
  Some of the Queen's cousins may get routine mention in the UK press, but always of the same kind of passing mention, no detail mention. But, if they get coverage when they are sent to ceremonially cut a ribbon at a Hospital, or they assume the sponsorship to a charity, that kind of coverage starts to measure up to GNG - even if every article that talks about them also mentions the Queen.
  Now the central argument in your delete opinion is that (most) articles that talk about Evans also talk about Holmes. This is not the way we evaluate the notability of other people who have more famous relatives, like EW's descendants and cousins. Why should we discount that Evans has enough coverage to pass GNG, just because his wife is more famous than he is?
  If you don't agree that the independent details we know about Evans measures up to GNG, how about listing what you think is missing? If you can't list what further elements you think RS have to supply for him to measure up to GNG, why shouldn't we take that as an acknowledgement Evans does, after all, measure up to GNG? Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a just plain non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, doesn't seem notable in his own right. Coderzombie (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Coderzombie, could you please only leave opinions based on our policies and conventions, and not on your gut feelings? RS wrote about Evans, in detail. Now you personally might think he is not notable, and if you were a newspaper editor, you would spike all your newspaper's articles about him. Well, you are certainly entitled to hold a personal opinion about Evans notability. However, I suggest, that since you are not a newspaper editor, your personal opinion of his notability shouldn't matter one whit, when actual newspaper editors allowed enough significant details about Evans to be published for him to measure up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth Holmes. If he's frequently mentioned in connection with his wife, but nothing else, a redirect seems justified. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Smartyllama, you have offered a conditional opinion. Well, if you check the RS out there, you will see that the coverage of Evans goes far beyond his connection to his wife. Many RS cover each of them more or less equally, while others like this article, https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-everything-about-fiance-william-billy-evans-2019-3 mainly cover Evans. While 3 of the first 5 paragraphs are mainly about Holmes, this is followed by 10 paragraphs solely about Evans. Two more paragraphs of the remaining dozen or so are about Holmes, and the remaining are about both of them. I don't think anyone could read this article and not conclude that it was mainly about Evans. Things we learn from it, that are not about Holmes, at all?
1. Evans is heir to the Evans Hotel Group;
2. Evans was an athlete at MIT;
3. Evans got a scholarship to study in China;
4. Evans learned Chinese, in China, and, following his graduation, and before he even met Holmes he tried to start his own medical firm, to bring rich Chinese individuals to the United States, to provide them with tailored "boutique" medical care;
5. Evans was a "brand manager" at Red Bull;
6. Evans also worked at LinkedIn;
7. Evans was close to his boss, at Luminar, and other employees accused him of serving as his boss's "secret police".

This is only one of many publications that published articles entitled something like "What do we know about Holmes fiance/husband", that then went on to publish details of his life that have nothing to do with Holmes.

So, what if the conditional premise of your opinion isn't correct? Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama I can easily agree that a redirect is appropriate here, I just cannot see notability here when only one article on Business Insider gives in depth details on the subject and the title literally has his wife's name in it. I support a redirect. Andrew nyr (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evans clearly measures up to GNG himself, even if he has a more famous spouse. Geo Swan (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Did you not read WP:GNG? "
  - Any Biography
1. The person has received significant recognized awards or honours.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

It then goes on to say "Non-valid general criteria
That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability. However, the person may be included in the related article. For example Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander."

Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew nyr: Given the part "However, the person may be included in the related article," I ask you to consider whether a redirect is a viable alternative to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew nyr The first bulleted point in WP:GNG starts: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content..."
Well, we have many RS that wrote about Evans, in detail. The second half of that first bulleted point says a topic, like Evans: "...does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Evans is, himself, the main topic of some of the RS. Other RS devote more paragraphs to Holmes, than to him, while still covering him in a meaningfully detailed manner. I think you make a serious mistake to discount the RS that talk about him in detail.
You are absolutely correct, that merely being related to a notable person does not make an individual notable, which is why most of Elizabeth Windsor's second and third cousins do not merit standalone articles. But, as I pointed out, her descendants have sufficient significant coverage to merit standalone articles, as do many of her first cousins.
Please be serious here. Wikipedia is not a battleground. You have an obligation to consider the possibility you may have made a mistake. If you have genuinely reviewed the available RS that talk about Evans, and you still genuinely think that some element is missing, so he falls short of measuring up to GNG, it should be a simple matter for you to go on record and state what that missing element is. Okay, what is it?
FWIW the passage you quoted, above, is not from GNG. It is from the essay Wikipedia:GNP Generally notable people. In the general hierarchy of wikidocuments, policies generally carry the most weight. Guideline and style guides come next. Essays generally come last, although some essays are referenced so often they might as well be policies. WP:ATA is an example of a very widely accepted essay. WP:GNP on the other hand has only been read 3300 times, in the last five years, while WP:GNG has been read 925,000 times. Geo Swan (talk) 19:12, 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. czar 04:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wii drivechips[edit]

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

I don't think any of these chips are notable, so the list certainly isn't. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I boldly and uncontroversially redirected the article two years ago because it completely fails our notability criteria, but it was undone purely in the technicality that it’s not mentioned at the parent article. Which is correct, it doesn’t even warrant a mention there. None of the items on the list have their own article. The article is almost entirely unsourced, and what is there, isn’t a reliable source (the Engadget source, while reliable, is a passing mention on a side tangent). Reliable sources don’t cover the subject in significant detail. Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the last two sentences of Sergecross73's rationale. That being said, I strongly disagree that the redirection was uncontroversial, and it pains me to see that they are still defending that action. The list should have been nominated for deletion back in 2018, not swept under the rug to be cleaned up a couple years later. The Wii article does not and should not have a list of drivechips, so having a redirect to that page, along with all the drivechips themselves, is misleading and confusing for anyone using these redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point about it being uncontroversial is merely pointing out that there is no one actually arguing for the article’s existence on the grounds of notability - back then or now - nothing else. That in itself is a valid point to bring to the discussion. AFDs are often opened up over people’s differing views on notability. That is not the case here. Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Blatant fail of WP:NOTLINKFARM and none of the list entries are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:18, 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 no consensus. I recommend first discussing whether to merge this somewhere before renominating it for deletion. Sandstein 20:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus party[edit]

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

~~Propose redirect to Pox party.~~ jamacfarlane (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One source about a Coronavirus party in Kentucky where participants apparently thumbed their noses at the disease: however the article makes it seem like these parties are widespread...yet I cannot find RS to back up this claim - . The other source in the article is about careful party goers with masks ostensibly trying not to catch the virus. A search reveals no other Coronavirus parties. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON or never. It remains to be seen if Coronavirus parties will be WP:LASTING. For now the Kentucky party is WP:WIDESPREAD - and that not a reason to have an article. I am willing to change my !vote if other evidence is found. Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
1. another source—CNN
2. Things are moving rapidly. If NYC has, say, 25 000 cases (≈ 1/4 of US) and if +90% get better in 2 weeks, I see a number of Covid-19 parties sprouting up before too long. (There's an article about some professional advocating them, but didn't include it in the article as I felt WP:BEANS)
3. I suppose a possible good source for RS is the non-English media.
4. FWIW, the article (at the time of this post) isn't 72 hours old.
DMBFFF (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles based on WP:CRYSTAL Lightburst (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and I should give the section you linked to a better read, but it doesn't seem to apply here. (Btw, according to worldometer, NYS now is over 4x that—113 704, US is 302 919 with 14 686 cases recovered.) DMBFFF (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On reflection, I don't think pox party is a suitable place to redirect to. The purpose of a pox party is to deliberately expose children to a disease. Coronavirus parties are held for adults in an act of defiance against government-advised social distancing and lockdown. I would suggest merging the content into Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and redirecting to the appropriate section there. jamacfarlane (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with that, though the redirect might be turned back into an article in a few months—maybe even a DAB—once it's established as a defiance party, as it seems to be, or more of a pox party, or as I'm seeing, a celebration by future survivors. DMBFFF (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. One isolated incident that got a blip of media attention. These idiots' 19 minutes of fame are up. Pox party is something entirely different. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please see the German article for additional material. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 11:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. If you like I am going to expand the article this weekend with additional information, also from NL and BE. Ziko (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable by the present sources. Plus no doubt there will be many more to come. (on a personal note, I'd probably attend one if there was one near me). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little too old to take this lightly, even for selfish reasons. Expected mortality for my cohort and gender is about 1.5%, and I have a history of atypical pneumonia, asthma and am blood type A. Adding the possibility of killing someone else I know and care about, it would present an unacceptable risk. Even without those selfish reasons, the risk of taking vital health resources, spreading directly or indirectly to others (potentially many hundreds or thousands), setting a bad example, or using police resources to deal with the "party" would all be good reasons not to.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 23:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Anyone that stupid should not be editing Wikipedia -- Nick (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no evidence in the [weak] sourcing that this is a clearly defined concept. We seem to have an article that's about any virus held during the pandemic which people are connecting to the pandemic (in the theme, in the advertising, in the range of motivations, etc.). It's a party to get coronavirus, in spite of coronavirus, themed after coronavirus, marketed by mentioning coronavirus, etc. Not a notable topic, and we have loads of other places where it could be mentioned if it were a well-defined subject per WP:NOPAGE. Would also support turning into a disambiguation page pointing to either ignorance or sociopathy.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At a glance, I note some of the sources in the German article seem to not distinguish properly between just a random party the cops had to shut down for public health reasons (or simply for public nuisance reasons) and a "Coronavirus party". Not every party in all this madness is a "Coronavirus party". Honestly, I don't think we have enough SIGCOV to meet GNG right now. CRYSTAL and NOTNEWS apply here. If it's notable, let's wait until it appears we have lasting impact. Kudos to the author for trying to stay on top of things, but it may not be time yet. Agreed that a redirect to Pox party isn't appropriate. Perhaps a redirect to one of the other Coronavirus articles, if not delete. Waggie (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see for example this article - are they deliberately trying to infect each other, are they doing it as an act of defiance, or are they just ignorant/reckless as to the risks? jamacfarlane (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on personal gatherings or similar.--Pharos (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That entire article is three sentences. We need to discourage these tiny offshoot articles. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – if these were intentional gatherings intended to spread herd immunity against the virus, a redirect to Pox party would be appropriate. But they're not – they're stupid and misguided acts of civil disobedience that put participants and thousands of others at risk. The few sources provided here don't lend themselves to covering this as a discrete topic, and as such this article fails GNG. – bradv🍁 17:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like the latest Moral panic, an irresponsible and dangerous activity that young people do in despite what society tells them to do. Like video games and rainbow parties (part urban legend). It remains to be seen whether this is a phenomenon that is relevant a week from today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people in a haste to delete articles about critical worldwide events? Come back and delete this in 2 months if the subject is truly not notable. But if thousands will turn out to die after attending such parties and then spreading, OP won't look good in his anal retentiveness. 2601:602:9200:1310:7479:E1A6:59F7:CB47 (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This reference addresses something called a "coronavirus party". Kentucky governor Andy Beshear has mentioned this phenomena. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think news outlets are probably over-sensationalizing individual incidents, but it does appear that this is a counter-force to social distancing that deserves attention. There are enough reliable sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources in the article. If not kept, it could be merged and redirected into a new section under Pox party. TJMSmith (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of the "delete" comments read more as moral commentary than as comments upon the notability of coronavirus parties. In any event, here's a source about one of these parties from two months ago: 'Infect me daddy,' Queen's University student trustee resigns after attending coronavirus party. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Tough. The term is used all around the world (Poland). But is it a notable term yet? I am worried this is right now just a WP:DICTDEF + examples of use. We are not Urban Dictionary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would like to see it kept I think. It might be actually helpful for craving current information readers.GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on personal gatherings (which was moved to user space but can/should be improved.) This article already talks about three different phenomena: people meeting before impending lockdown (and guilty as charged, I will not see my friends for months and perhaps never), people having parties/gatherings in defiance of rules about gatherings, and people intending to catch the virus. Those are all different. They would also be better served in an article about how the pandemic has impacted socialization in general. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems to be a thing now. NYPost has an article about corona potlucks. I actually hope i'm wrong and this eventually becomes too minor and gets deleted. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Corona parties in Germany were mentioned also in Czech newspapers ([27]), Slovak newspapers ([28]) etc. Also Polish newspapers use the term "Korona party" for some local events ([29]). Certainly it is a worldwide and specific phenomenon, although it is typical for some countries and in others it is a rare excess, but all the more publicized and condemned. --ŠJů (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to pox party; flu parties are already mentioned there so it's not a chickenpox-specific article. Buttons0603 (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buttons0603, pox parties are for intentionally contracting a disease in order to gain immunity, primarily for diseases like chicken pox where getting it an early age results in reduced symptoms. This is something completely different. – bradv🍁 00:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We may not like it, but it's a phenomenon occuring often enough to be discussed in politics and media. The article already has enough sources to prove notability, but many more sources exist and could be added. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:18, 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.

[nrhpdoc-Daniels-1] Tiffany VanderSchaaf (February 21, 2005). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Daniels School / School District No. 217 / 5WL.31". National Park Service. Retrieved March 29, 2020. With accompanying 18 photos from 2004-05

[2] "Pat Quinn Hires Ben Nuckels As Campaign Manager". The Huffington Post. 12 May 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2020.

[3] "The Pulse: New Manager for Quinn Campaign". New York Times. 7 May 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2020.

[4] "Iowa native manages Illinois governor's win". Des Moines Cityview. 9 December 2010. Retrieved 12 March 2020.

[5] "Strother Nuckels Strategies Tugs At Heartstrings for Airbnb". AdWeek. 20 September 2016. Retrieved 12 March 2020.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]