Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 March	30 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Management Information System Software[edit]

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

While the work of HUD is notable, this list of applications and websites does not appear to be notable in any way. Especially as the vast majority of the software tools included don't appear notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Appears to violate WP:Directory as well. StarM 23:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the creator of this article (and not an experienced editor). I created it because it was consistent with the way that I use Wikipedia content (e.g., when researching software options for x purpose) and because I noticed a gap in the world of information -- not specifically on Wikipedia, but on the whole Internet -- when I went looking for a list. HMIS software isn't as broadly relevant as something like XML editors, but every Continuum of Care (there are about 400 of them and they cover the geography of all US states and territories) is required to use an HMIS application and this is the only list of them that I'm aware of. Anyway. I do understand that just because it's consistent with the way I use Wikipedia doesn't mean that it's consistent with how you intend Wikipedia to be used... If there is anything I can do to improve the article, I would be grateful for suggestions; otherwise, I defer to your expertise. --Ajila Khajit (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software list article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Also WP:LINKFARM issues. HUD publishes the standards for these tools, and as such it is not independent. We already have the article Homeless Management Information Systems that could be improved upon if any of these software products has significant RS coverage. As of now, none of the items have any RS refs. As a list, this is not notable per WP:LISTN - this list lacks evidence that it has been 'discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources'. A search turned up incidental mentions of specific Homeless Management Information Systems, but not discussions of these tools as a group.Dialectric (talk) 02:03, 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 redirect to Anthony Joseph. Redirect to artist as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leggo de Lion[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE source and chart searches, this album does not appear to meet any points of WP:NALBUMS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Lovett[edit]

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

No notable wrestler, fails WP:GNG. 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 Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 21 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} 02:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Kushwaha[edit]

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

Notability and encyclopedic issue, possible use for advertisement, neutrality issue, Biography fitness for wiki seems dubious. Instead of PROD, suggestion of other users will be better. Navinsingh133 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Navinsingh133 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Navinsingh133 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Navinsingh133 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Elected member of the state legislative assembly meets WP:POLITICIAN.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. He is an elected legislative member to the State assemby which meets WP:POLITICIAN. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep mentioned person is a member or on duty politician of Bihar Legislative Assembly and from refrances here it's clear he was elected from Ziradei Legislative constituency in year 2015 by defeating his opponent by a huge margin and clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN Sturdyankit (chat) 17:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the article needs improvement, but properly verified elected members of state legislatures have a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1. Granted, we're not always on the ball about writing good articles about state legislators — we do have a lazy tendency to just single-source the fact that they exist and then walk away without improving the article any further — but we base notability on the existence of suitable sources and not the current state of the article. State legislators get covered by the media, so they pass WP:GNG, which is a very different matter than whether we have actually maximized our use of those sources or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as he is an elected MLA. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL has been elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above, article still needs some improvements but he was elected to the state Legislative Assembly. passes WP:NPOLITICIAN, Alex-h (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NPOL - elected from a district larger than most state legislatures in the United States. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL has been elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly. I agree with the users above. This is a waste of time. Cedix (talk) 11:29, 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 draftified by creator User:Pharos (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 20:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus impact on personal gatherings[edit]

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

Merge into Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic or Draftify. I recognise there is scope for substantial articles on these topics, but for now there are far too many of these stub articles. This one is also entirely unreferenced. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is duplicative of several other articles already in existence. We do not need individual articles on every possible coronavirus topic. If I see Impact of coronavirus on Easter candy, I'm going to have a coronary. Natureium (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously this page is only an hour old, so pardon my belated adding of references. The whole idea of this article is to include whatever soial manifestations of gatherings that emerge out of this, so we don't end up with separate articles on balcony concert or birthday parade. It's quite a mergist concept, really.--Pharos (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pharos: Apologies if it's a bit crass of me to propose deleting an article within an hour of you creating it, I'm just keen for there to be a good structure to coronavirus pandemic articles and not a sprawling mass of minor articles. Perhaps move the article to the draft namespace until it's a bit more developed? jamacfarlane (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019. A separate article is not needed - does not meet WP:BCA Lightburst (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is a perfect candidate to draftify. We have a willing and active editor developing it, and it seems notable, if stubby -- just needs some work. Drafting it till ready seems an ideal WP:ATD to me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:07, 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) 13:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manesar Industries' Welfare Association[edit]

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

This organization exists, but there's nothing (in the article or via google) to indicate it meets WP:ORG or is otherwise notable. StarM 19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Took a look and couldn't find significant coverage. The Hindustan times and IndiaToday both had a few articles that mentioned MIWA, but it was mostly WP:NOTNEWS type coverage. Nothing rising to the level of corporate notability. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:28, 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. No Consensus on a rename; if you want to pursue that, the talk pages are your friend. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Younan Properties[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for notability since Jun 2017, so we ought to decide definitively whether it is notable, in which case we can remove the tag, or whether it isn't, in which case we can delete. Problems with COI and unsourced material appear to have been resolved. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough coverage to pass notability. [1]. [2], [3], [4] are a few examples. MB 19:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment: The Orion Investment Real Estate source is a reprinted press release by the company, the Hotel News Resource item is a routine announcement, also by the company, and the Benzinga item is a press release. The "Younan Properties in Acquisition Mode" item from San Fernando Valley Business Journal is the only one of these not sourced directly from the company. AllyD (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Sadovi, Maura Webber (2011-11-23). "Younan Keeps Aim High: Despite Setbacks, IPO in 2012 Still Possible". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
Pruitt, A.D. (2010-07-14). "Some REITs Flee IPO Altar". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
Feser, Katherine (2007-12-31). "Younan keeps up pace of expansion". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
Wilcox, Greg (2006-09-14). "Investor plans to head east with money". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
Mintz, Jenni (2008-02-24). "Westlake Village real estate investor expects big things for Oxnard harbor". Ventura County Star. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
Feser, Katherine (2007-07-02). "Deal of the week: Younan Properties began local real estate plan". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
"Flash Forward – Zaya S. Younan: Executive Decisions". CSQ. March 2014. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
Brown, Steve (2006-09-29). "Younan buys - Energy Square - 3 towers near Lovers Lane rail station bring its Dallas square footage to 4.7 million". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
Jackson, Jerry W. (2007-07-06). "Will office market continue to grow? - Zaya Younan doesn't think so. He sold his Maitland complex and is leaving Florida". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
Miller, Robert (2007-07-09). "Executive sponsors war exhibit". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
Roeder, David (2007-07-26). "Towering ambition - Developer wants world's tallest for U.S." Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.

Sources with quotes

Sadovi, Maura Webber (2011-11-23). "Younan Keeps Aim High: Despite Setbacks, IPO in 2012 Still Possible". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
Zaya Younan is no exception to the rule that real-estate developers generally have big ambitions.
A U.S. immigrant from Iran, he built a portfolio of U.S. office buildings that at one point included 35 properties with 11 million square feet. He now says he wants his company, Younan Properties Inc, to be the largest office owner in the country and to one day develop the tallest building in the world.
But Mr. Younan's empire is contracting. So far this year he says he has sold seven Texas office buildings and given three office properties, including the 30-story Patriot Tower in Dallas, back to lenders. The company now has 26 office buildings with more than 8 million square feet of office space.
In the latest sale, Younan Properties, based in Woodland Hills, Calif., fetched $95 million for three Dallas office buildings known as Energy Square north of downtown with about 950,000 square feet, a person familiar with the deal said. The sale comes just as Younan faced $75 million in debt coming due on the property, according to Mr. Younan.
Pruitt, A.D. (2010-07-14). "Some REITs Flee IPO Altar". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
Some of the larger planned REITs in the pipeline include Younan Properties Inc., an office-property company seeking to raise $575 million, and DLC Realty Trust, a shopping-center operator that also plans to raise $575 million.
Feser, Katherine (2007-12-31). "Younan keeps up pace of expansion". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
Younan Properties has capped off the year with the purchase of three more office buildings in Houston.
...
Since last year, Los Angeles-based Younan Properties has purchased 11 office buildings in the Houston area. Most recently, Younan Properties acquired 1010 Lamar downtown.
The company was founded by Zaya Younan in 2001. Its holdings total 11 million square feet of office space, including 8 million square feet in Texas.
Wilcox, Greg (2006-09-14). "Investor plans to head east with money". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
Zaya S. Younan made a bundle of money since 2002 investing in California commercial real estate. Now he’s putting his money elsewhere.
Younan, chairman and chief executive officer of Woodland Hills-based Younan Properties Inc., just sold Pacific Pointe in Gardena to Transwestern Commercial Services for $58 million.
That deal completes Younan’s divesture of its $1.5 billion California office portfolio.
He’s now going to focus on Chicago, Dallas and Houston, where the company will invest about $1 billion over the next 18 months.
Mintz, Jenni (2008-02-24). "Westlake Village real estate investor expects big things for Oxnard harbor". Ventura County Star. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
He's ambitious, too. He hasn't taken a day off since he founded Younan Properties in December 2001, and says he has promised his employees that he won't until the company becomes the largest real estate investment firm in the country. Not exactly a cakewalk, considering that would mean reaching a cool $100 billion in assets, but Younan thinks it'll happen in the next two years.
...
In six years, Younan Properties has acquired 34 properties valued at about $4 billion. In 2007, the company generated $380 million in revenue, up from $160 million in 2006.
Most of the properties are commercial office buildings in Texas, Illinois and Arizona. At times, his strategy might seem a unorthodox to other investors. For example, a few years ago he pulled out of the then-hot Los Angeles market because he saw the growth as unsustainable. He reinvested in thriving markets, such as Phoenix.
Feser, Katherine (2007-07-02). "Deal of the week: Younan Properties began local real estate plan". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
The firm began investing in Houston about a year ago with the purchase of Norfolk Tower, a 206,680-square-foot property at 2211 Norfolk. It is in the process of buying Northbelt Corporate Center, a 10-story building on the North Sam Houston Parkway in the Greenspoint area.
Founded in 2002, Younan Properties concentrates on high-growth markets, with about 10 million square feet of holdings in Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Texas. Its largest market is Dallas where it has close to 7.5 million square feet of office space.
"Flash Forward – Zaya S. Younan: Executive Decisions". CSQ. March 2014. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
In the summer of 2008, Younan Properties was poised to execute a $600m public offering. It seemed like the right place and the right time. The real estate market, flush with eternal optimism, could not seem like a more secure industry. Of course, history tells a different story, and Zaya Younan’s company took a massive hit when the market caved in shortly thereafter. The future seemed bleak. While the anxiety of impending failure lingered, Younan refused to throw in the towel. He forged ahead, keeping the faith that soon he would see the light at the end of a dark, crumbling tunnel.
...
Since 2008, Younan Properties has increased its size by almost one third; the company now owns over $4B worth of commercial real estate in North America and is the largest commercial real estate holder in Dallas, Texas.
Brown, Steve (2006-09-29). "Younan buys - Energy Square - 3 towers near Lovers Lane rail station bring its Dallas square footage to 4.7 million". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
Younan Properties Inc. is on its way to becoming one of Dallas' biggest office landlords.
...
Younan bought the Energy Square buildings as part of a package of properties it acquired from Chicago-based Transwestern Investment Co. Three other buildings in the deal are located in Chicago. Terms of the sale were not disclosed.
...
The Dallas purchase includes the 14-story One Energy Square building on Greenville Avenue, 16-story Two Energy Square on University Boulevard and Three Energy Square on North Central Expressway, which has 16 stories.
Jackson, Jerry W. (2007-07-06). "Will office market continue to grow? - Zaya Younan doesn't think so. He sold his Maitland complex and is leaving Florida". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
The chief executive of one of the nation's fastest-growing office-property owners said Thursday he has sold his one Florida holding -- a 137,000-square-foot office complex in Maitland -- for $24 million and thinks the Orlando office market has peaked for now.
Zaya S. Younan, chairman and chief executive officer of privately held Younan Properties Inc., said he will focus on building his office portfolio where he expects better growth prospects for the next several years -- in areas such as Dallas, Houston and Chicago.
...
Most of the Younan properties are in Texas, Illinois and Arizona. Younan said Thursday that he tried unsuccessfully to buy more office properties in Florida a few years ago.
Miller, Robert (2007-07-09). "Executive sponsors war exhibit". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
The Zaya and Sherry S. Younan Foundation of Los Angeles has announced it will sponsor a new "America's Longest Conflict" exhibit at the Frontiers of Flight Museum.
In recent years, Zaya S. Younan, chairman and chief executive of Younan Properties Inc., has become Dallas' leading office landlord, with nearly 7 million square feet of Class A office space in the city.
...
Headquartered in Los Angeles, Younan Properties specializes in acquiring Class A office properties in high-growth markets.
Since founding the company in 2002, Mr. Younan has accumulated a portfolio with 9 million square feet of office buildings valued at more than $1.5 billion in Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Texas.
Roeder, David (2007-07-26). "Towering ambition - Developer wants world's tallest for U.S." Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2020-03-31. Retrieved 2020-03-31.
The article notes:
Zaya Younan is not crazy. Since starting a real estate business in 2002, he has become one of the largest office landlords in Texas, and accumulated property worth about $1.5 billion, claiming strong and steady returns for investors.
Now he wants to build the world's tallest building. He wants it in Chicago, Los Angeles or Houston. He wants it for the glory of the United States of America, and to take advantage of long-term trends that he said will lead to more vertical living in major cities.

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

Cunard (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources discuss Younan Properties' eponymous founder, Zaya S. Younan. One option is to rename Younan Properties to Zaya S. Younan. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient notability for the firm has been demonstrated in the list of links provided by User:Cunard above. I would not however, support renaming the article to the name of its founder and CEO. Note that a previous page on Mr. Younan also suffered from severe promotional COI editing before being deleted. Loopy30 (talk) 13:18, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dick, Colorado[edit]

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

Another isolated siding on a long-abandoned UP line. There was never anything around it, and it's now a spot in a field. Mangoe (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google turned up nothing, just mapquest data. As a side note, I wonder if a lot of these railroad sidings would be better as a list? For instance there have been a bunch of Arizona deletion discussions recently about old railroad siding type places, and I've thought it would be better if we could redirect pages to a list. Something like Defunct Union Pacific sidings, Colorado. Just a thought. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's something to be said for lists of names on lines, though we tend to only have those in limited cases. I'm dubious that we should have redirects for every place in these lists, though. Mangoe (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging The C of E—seems like this would be right up your alley. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another railroad siding. A list of stops on a rail line would be a good idea but I'm not sure that we need to include every siding, junction, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 02:00, 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 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961. @Dflaw4: I've left the article history there so if you want to merge everything is there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leul Abate[edit]

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

All this is, is a repeat of information from the flight 961 article. Also clearly showing bias, such is this sentence “However it is worth noting that most of the passengers died as they inflated their life vests before exiting the plane and were unable to get out when the plane ditched” CZ3699 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961, as he is only notable for one event. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CaptainEek. Mccapra (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per CaptainEek. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, The article has not enough notability to stay on itself, better to redirect it to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961. Alex-h (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My vote is superfluous, because there is already a clear consensus to "Redirect". If there is any information on this page that isn't on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 I would suggest merging it. Also, the example of alleged bias which the nominator highlighted is more of an extrapolation of eyewitness testimony, I think, since surviving passengers did report that several other passengers inflated their life jackets prior to the ditching. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:56, 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 Draftify to give the new editor time to improve the article and demonstrate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emay (rapper)[edit]

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

Very highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As written, this is committing one of the worst campaigns of reference bombing I've ever seen -- there are literally 290 footnotes here, but on a rough count approximately 280 of them are unreliable and non-notability supporting junk: I've ticked off roughly 118 blogs, 44 online music stores, 33 streaming platforms, 24 podcasts, 19 user-generated databases like Genius and discogs.com and DeviantArt, 13 social networking links like last.fm and Facebook, 21 glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are not about him, two Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person, four citations to his own self-published website about himself, one piece in a university student newspaper (but NMUSIC specifically deprecates student media as not appropriate for use in musical BLPs at all), and two citations that I can't even identify why they're here as they completely fail to even mention Emay at all. And while there are a few better sources (like a Vice piece that is actually about him) hiding in the weeds, the existence of a few good sources does not legitimize relying 95 per cent on bad ones, or exempt the article from having to be written in a neutral point of view.
The article, further, was created by an WP:SPA who appears to be here solely to promote Emay, meaning that this is most likely either an autobiography, or commercial publicity being pushed by his management team.
So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write the article objectively and reference it properly to reliable sources -- but Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which musicians are automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be written and sourced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original creator of the page and would like to clarify a few things. I am not Emay or his management team and I did not create this account to promote Emay. I intend to continue adding to other wikipedia pages, but I thought creating a page from scratch would be instructive. I didn't know what reference bombing was until the page got flagged for deletion and was simply trying to be thorough with my citations. Since the article was flagged I have removed 237 references and I have moved some links to the External Links section (although I am still unsure whether that edit was appropriate; feel free to remove the links if it wasn't appropriate). I have yet to read all of the guidlines on what are good and bad arguments to keep a page so forgive me if these are bad arguments. The main argument against the article seems to be that the subject is not notable enough. I disagree and would like to point out that the subject has references from Vice Music, Spin Magazine, Complex Magazine (unsure whether this one counts), Fader Magazine, The Come Up Show, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and various other magazines and local news sources. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify this fan-created wall. Potentially, I see he could be notable, but there's still too much stuff. Otherwise, it risks being deleted per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(This content is from the talk page. I'm still unfamiliar with what a talk page is supposed to be, but according bearcat I shouldn't be putting this stuff in there and I think this is the most important segment) John Pack Lambert has suggested that Emay "does not meet any of our notability guidelines for musicians", however, Notability (music) states that an artist is notable if they have "released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)". Emay has released an album with Last Gang Records, which has a history of 17 years and a roster available on wikipedia of 63 different artists. Emay has also released an album with Jet Jam, which according to wikipedia has a history of 8 years and according to Jet Jam's website has signed at least 8 artists. Notability (music) states that an artist "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" and from a quick glance Emay meets four of them (1, 5, 6, and 7). TipsyElephant (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This appears to be a good-faith effort by a new editor, and there's some reasonable arguments in the comment directly above why this might meet WP:NMUSIC. Unfortunately, by moving it directly into mainspace, the author failed to avail themselves of review, which might have solved some of the problems with this article. If it's moved back into draft space, the author can take the time to work on the article, get more familiar with our notability guidelines, and (no promises) eventually it might get moved back to mainspace via the normal WP:AfC review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 6 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 Carneys Point Township, New Jersey. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biddles Landing, New Jersey[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE search did not return any coverage to support the existence of an unincorporated community or populated place at this location. Fails WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 17:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carneys Point Township, New Jersey Per WP:GEOLAND, as this area is unincorporated, WP:GNG needs to be met and it isn't met here. Alansohn (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carneys Point Township, New Jersey per WP:GEOLAND Djflem (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Deserves mention on the township article but probably not enough here for a seperate article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:49, 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 redirect to Bordentown Township, New Jersey. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bossert Estates, New Jersey[edit]

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

1963 article confirms that this is a housing development, not an unincorporated community. Fails WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bordentown Township, New Jersey, where this neighborhood is mentioned in geography section. New Jersey Department of Transportation is cool with it:"NJDOT Graphic Information System Maps Burlington" (PDF). New Jersey Department of Transportation. Retrieved March 27, 2020.Djflem (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, maps do not establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 19:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability by government sources is always good.Djflem (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Per above cited WP:GEOLAND #2: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bordentown Township, as it is a community within the township, recognized by the state. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:09, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comical Corner, New Jersey[edit]

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

This appears to be a named road junction, not an unincorporated community. Fails WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Comical Corner has been described as a village, a village, a village, and a hamlet. A lot of old books seem to refer to Comical Corner in words used to describe a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided.Djflem (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The article meets the standard of having non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be an actual village rather than an intersection. Has sources for GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:02, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adna, Colorado[edit]

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

Topos indicate that this was never more than a siding on a now abandoned Great Western Railway of Colorado line. Searching is made a bit difficult because Adna is apparently a biblical name, but searching specifically for the place got no real book hits and only clickbait for websites. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 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) 13:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janata Party, Sikkim Unit[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and WP:BRANCH Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources are election results. An english language search turned up nothing, although it is possible that a local language search could turn up more. However this seems to be a local branch of a political party, which inherently has low notability, only exceptional local parties warrant coverage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:00, 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. A suggestion was made to redirect to Man, West Virginia, but the target doesn't mention this, so I didn't redirect. If somebody wants to update the target and then create a redirect on their own, that's fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hensley Heights, West Virginia[edit]

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

According to Newspapers.com results, Hensley Heights is a subdivision built in the late 1950s/early 1960s; topo maps do not show the name before that time. No sign of a distinct "unincorporated community" here. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no notability. We only have two sources with passing mentions of the town. Koridas (Speak?) 16:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Man, West Virginia. Seems to be a neighborhood in the town of Man, see [5]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:13, 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 Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah#List of characters. History intact, anything sourced can be merged at editors' discretion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popatlal[edit]

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

One of the side characters from a TV show. No significant or individual coverage. Fails WP:GNG as well. No reason to create a standalone page. - The9Man ^(Talk) 15:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah#List of characters. Article consists mostly of an unsourced, poorly worded and confusing plot summary. The sources in this article either do not even mention the character, are plot summaries, or are about the characters actor leaving the show. Even if sources are deemed sufficient, this is a pretty clear case where WP:TNT applies. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah#List of characters. Fully agree with Devonian Wombat. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as stated above. Popatlal is listed there in Main characters. David notMD (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah#List of characters as stated above. Popatlal is listed there in Main characters. The information here can be added there. Cedix (talk) 11:28, 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 Howell Township, New Jersey. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ardmore Estates, New Jersey[edit]

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

As the article state, this is a housing development, not an "unincorporated community". Newspapers.com returned no coverage beyond ads for new homes from the 1950s. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neighborhoods/housing developments are not inherently notable without meeting WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Howell Township, New Jersey Per WP:GEOLAND, as this neighborhood is unincorporated, WP:GNG needs to be met and it isn't met here. Alansohn (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Howell Township, New Jersey Per WP:GEOLAND Djflem (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Howell Township, New Jersey as a subdivision that probably deserves mention on the township page. Only this, and nothing more. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:54, 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 Oceanport, New Jersey. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sands Point, New Jersey[edit]

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

There's no sign that this area within Oceanport, New Jersey is a distinct community. 1918 topo labels the peninsula itself as "Sands Point", and newspapers from the 1970s advertise newly built apartments and condos, but nothing indicates that there is or was an "unincorporated community" here. –dlthewave ☎ 15:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neighborhoods/housing developments are not inherently notable without meeting WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oceanport, New Jersey Per WP:GEOLAND, as this neighborhood is unincorporated, WP:GNG needs to be met and it isn't met here. Alansohn (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oceanport, New Jersey, where its place on a peninsula would geographically distinguish it from other communities, but mostly per WP:GEOLAND Djflem (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Seems to be a peninsula/neighborhood rather than true unincorporated community. Generally, neighborhoods that are not part of a major city are not notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Concur, this is not independently notable, but a redirect makes sense here. Waggie (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archi Times[edit]

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:NMEDIA. Störm (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable architectural magazine WP:NTEMP applies. Lightburst (talk) 15:41, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Winn[edit]

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

Passing mentions; oh so many passing mentions. Helpfully excerpted in the refs - and yes, these are the only mentions of his name in these sources. Plus one HuffPo interview. Independent, in-depth coverage is sorely lacking here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. The present sourcing is, to be blunt, insulting, and there's nothing better out there. PK650 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some passing mentions, but nothing substantive to show WP:NACTOR is satisfied or to support a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I, too, am struggling to find reliable, in-depth coverage of the subject. (On a side note, none of his roles, in my opinion, would go towards WP:NACTOR either; he is generally quite far down the pecking order.) Dflaw4 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. not enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 13:02, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Boy[edit]

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

Non-notable music by writer not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, with no references. Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, found one RS, not enough. Caro7200 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced only to the creator's website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Proactive law#Proactive Law in a Business Context. Mark viking, not sure if it's on your watchlist, figured I'd courtesy ping since you rewrote the content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proactive contracting[edit]

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

This essay consists mostly of meaningless jargon-laden marketing talk with the lingering odor of promotion. The sources are either dead links, wild goose chases, or serve only to synthesise the topic from sources not actually about it. This was proposed for deletion a month ago and since then neither I nor anyone else has been able to find sources from which to build a credible article. Reyk _YO! 11:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have circled back to this topic. However I still cannot decide on the notability of the subject. Lightburst (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only glancing mentions in the sources; several sources don't even mention the topic. A redirect to Proactive law is a cheap way out if you're not sure. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Proactive law#Proactive_Law_in_a_Business_Context. I have completely rewritten the article, transforming into a referenced stub. There are sources out there, and in the article, that convinces me this is a real movement in contract law. I don't know if it rises to the level of GNG, but in any case, the stub content is verifiable and I think this stub is better merged into Proactive law, as proactive law and proactive contracting are quite tightly linked. With verifiable material and a good target article, merge is preferred over deletion per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungry Syrian Wanderer[edit]

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

Request at WT:AFD, full request was:

Can someone please create an Afd discussing for the page The Hungry Syrian Wanderer - Clearly non-notable youtuber, and lacks of content. 92.37.129.176 (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the request itself. Regards So Why 08:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, They are not in the article as of right now, but there are sources out there. This: [6] focuses on his charitable efforts in buying blankets for victims of the Mindanao earthquake, and this: [7] covers him cooking for victims of the Taal volcanic eruption. There is also this: [8], which is coverage about a video he made praising the Philippines, which backs up the Philippine Star source already in the article. He seems to quite clearly pass WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E with these sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Phillipine Star, Arab News and other news outlets so deserves an article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 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) 09:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanraj Nathwani[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, being the vice president of a state-level cricket association is not notable and Who's who doesn't show notability per WP:BIO Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the refs are listings or WP:ROUTINE reporting, so fails WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidecne of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS ^💬 15:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete He is notable person with holding multiple positions and reknown personalities like Jay Shah, I am adding more reference URLs here

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10]

These References should be enough proof for notability of Dhanraj Nathwani, Kindly retain this article. - હમઝા ઘાંચી (Talk) 09:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these seem to be the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. They are all stories that mention or quote him, none of them tell us anything substantial (other than his position) about him. One of them is a quote of him tweeting about a pigeon, how on earth does that prove anything? One detailed article specifically about him would carry more weight than the 10 passing mentions combined. Spike 'em (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. We need more substantial coverage than has been provided.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/news/dhanraj-nathwani-new-vice-president-of-gujarat-cricket-association/articleshow/71352787.cms
^ https://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hip-n-hap/for-all-krishna-devotees/articleshow/70612059.cms
^ https://www.insider.com/2-pigeons-goair-aircraft-india-passengers-capture-viral-video-2020-3
^ https://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/others/namaste-trump-were-ready/articleshow/74249741.cms
^ https://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/cover-story/motera-stadium-gujarats-grand-stand/articleshow/74050920.cms
^ https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/602175-world-s-largest-stadium-being-opened-in-two-months
^ https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/variety/picchvai-art-adds-new-colours-to-lord-dwarkadheesh/article28973951.ece
^ https://thewire.in/sport/bcci-jay-amit-shah-arun-dhamal
^ https://www.crictracker.com/cricketing-trends-on-social-media-today-27-january-2020/
^ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/namaste-trump-donald-trump-india-visit-motera-stadium-narendra-modi-6281786/

Delete - per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. He appears to be one of millions of business persons in India. The only single reliable sources, Times of India has a short article about how he got to be VP of a sports club. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 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. If people want to pursue a merge, that can be discussed on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Students Learn[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Could possibly redirect, as one of its two editors is notable, but that could be misleading as article contains nothing on the book and he is only one of the editors. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

Here are reviews and other sources:

Adomanis, James F. (May 2006). "How Students Learn: History in the Classroom, edited by M. Suzanne Donovan and John D. Bransford. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005. 615 pages. $34.95, paper, with a CD-ROM". The History Teacher. 39 (3). Society for History Education: 410–411. doi:10.2307/30036810. ISSN 0018-2745.
Gilbert, John K. (2005-09-26). "How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom". Science Education. 89 (6). Wiley: 1043–1045. doi:10.1002/sce.20115. ISSN 0036-8326.
Coffey, David (March 2006). "How Students Learn: Mathematics in the Classroom". Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. 11 (7). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: 351–352. ISSN 1072-0839. JSTOR 41182323.
Leach, John T. (2005-12-16). "Book review: How students learn: Science in the classroom". International Journal of Science Education. 27 (15). Routledge: 1883–1886. doi:10.1080/09500690500247576. ISSN 0950-0693.
Carboni, Lisa Wilson (March 2006). "How Students Learn: Mathematics in the Classroom". Teaching Children Mathematics. 12 (7). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: 384. ISSN 1073-5836. JSTOR 41198776.
Godsell, Sarah (2016-12-03). "What is history? Views from a primary school teacher education programme". South African Journal of Childhood Education. 6 (1). University of Johannesburg. doi:10.4102/sajce.v6i1.485. ISSN 2223-7682. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-03-30.
Davis, Seonaid (September 2005). "Teaching Science Through the Use of Modelling [How Students Learn History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom]". The Crucible. 371 (1). Science Teachers' Association of Ontario: 16–18. ISSN 0381-8047.

Sources with quotes

Adomanis, James F. (May 2006). "How Students Learn: History in the Classroom, edited by M. Suzanne Donovan and John D. Bransford. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005. 615 pages. $34.95, paper, with a CD-ROM". The History Teacher. 39 (3). Society for History Education: 410–411. doi:10.2307/30036810. ISSN 0018-2745.
The review notes:
Picking up a book to read published by the National Research Council is not something every classroom practitioner of Clio might do. But the title of this work "How Students Learn: History in the Classroom" intrigued this reader who was trained and mentored to be a career educator-historian. Classroom teachers, no matter what grade level, need to be experts in at least two fields—content and pedagogy. Building on the research on learning conducted in the 1990s, the editors of this volume shift their attention away from general learning research theory to a more focused one on history. The reader is informed that "this volume highlights different approaches to addressing the same fundamental principles of learning." The introductory and concluding chapters, penned by learning researchers, examine the learning environment, the design of instruction, and the intent and organization of the book. The reader is introduced to three large blocks of content: Understanding History, Teaching and Planning, and Applying the Principles of "How People Learn" to work in the elementary, middle, and high school environment. Gary Nash, Charlotte Crabtree, and the cast of thousands involved in the History Standards movement in the 1990s might see this work as an extension of their chapters on historical thinking skills. Much of the terminology, strategies, and concepts used in "How Students Learn" will be familiar to the Standards makers.
...
How Students Learn: History in the Classroom got me thinking about how teachers learn history and historical methodology. Unfortunately, unless teachers were exposed to great scholars who made them think while they were learning their profession whether content or pedagogy, today's classroom practitioners may well have been poorly taught and so have a deep hole out of which to climb. The National Research Council and this particular group of authors should be commended for producing a thought-provoking volume. Even those educators who already do a good job "teaching history" can benefit by understanding the process of learning that is outlined in this book.
Gilbert, John K. (2005-09-26). "How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom". Science Education. 89 (6). Wiley: 1043–1045. doi:10.1002/sce.20115. ISSN 0036-8326.
The review notes:
This volume is the latest product from a sustained program of scholarship. The first book in the series—How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (NRC, 1999a)— was a broad, in-depth review of what is known about human learning and its implications for teaching. This was accompanied by How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice (NRC, 1999b), which identified the research and development that was still needed in respect of classroom teaching and learning and suggested ways in which the outcomes could be communicated to teachers. The next step was the identification of “examples of how the principles and findings on learning can guide the teaching of a set of topics that commonly appear in the K-12 curriculum” (p. vii) at three levels (elementary, middle, and high school) and their publication in How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom (NRC, 2005). The present volume is a subset of the latter, concerned only with science, preceded by the Introduction and followed by the concluding chapter from the larger publication. It is accompanied by a CD-Rom that gives the full text of that volume. Before beginning a review of the present volume, it is worth remarking that science teachers would be well advised to look also at the material on history and mathematics. Given Jerome Bruner’s maxim that it is the task of pupils to extract an education from a course of instruction, teachers’ awareness of what is going on elsewhere in the curriculum is to be strongly encouraged.
...
This volume contains many ideas and, indeed, an overall structure that can make a valuable contribution to science education. Although primarily intended (quite properly) for the U.S. market, it could inform other educational systems by a process of analogy. However, it will be difficult for the individual teacher to see how to apply its principles in a particular context. The book might therefore be used to greatest effect where mentoring support is available, e.g., in preservice, teacher-education programs.
Alas, the volume is a second-order derivative from a larger enterprise. Thus there is a great deal of overlap between the first two chapters, while the last chapter is largely superfluous. Had the work of providing such a volume been seen as a first-order task, the space saved could have been more fruitfully used in the fuller exposition of some ideas, e.g. the presentation of illustrations of multicycles of inquiry. Moreover, it might have enabled the guiding structure of the volume to be more extensively illustrated in each chapter, perhaps allowing neglected themes, e.g. conceptual development or community-centeredness, to be addressed. While interview-based data are included in the text to good effect in developing ideas, other research is consigned to text boxes that will be ignored by many readers. The issue of how to communicate research findings to teachers has evidently not yet been solved.
Coffey, David (March 2006). "How Students Learn: Mathematics in the Classroom". Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School. 11 (7). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: 351–352. ISSN 1072-0839. JSTOR 41182323.
The review notes:
Three fundamental learning principles provide the framework for this text: (1) engaging prior understanding, (2) the essential role of factual knowledge and conceptual frameworks in understanding, and (3) the importance of self-monitoring. After introducing these principles in chapter 1, the remaining chapters describe effort so apply them in teaching K-12 mathematics. The goal of How Students Learn is not to prescribe methods or curriculum but to help teachers reflect on their practice through the principles of learning.
Specific examples describe how various curriculum developers have done this in core mathematical topics such as the teaching of whole numbers, rational numbers, and functions. The accompanying research demonstrates the positive effects associated with using the principles in planning, implementing, and reflecting on mathematics instruction. Although certain chapters would be useful for preservice and in-service K-12 teachers (i.e., the whole numbers chapter for elementary teachers), the entire book is most appropriate for professional developers and teacher educators.
I found the introductory chapters most useful and have already incorporated the principles and several referenced resources into my lessons for both preservice and in-service teachers with success. Although it was informative to read about how the authors of later chapters used the principles to inform the development of their curricula, thus far I have found these chapters to be less influential in my own practice. Still, I would highly recommend How Students Learn to anyone involved in the professional development of teachers at any level.
Leach, John T. (2005-12-16). "Book review: How students learn: Science in the classroom". International Journal of Science Education. 27 (15). Routledge: 1883–1886. doi:10.1080/09500690500247576. ISSN 0950-0693.
The review notes:
How students learn was published in 2005. It takes the Principles and Framework from “How people learn”, and works them through in the context of three school subject areas (science, mathematics and history). Separate books have been published for each subject area, though the Preface and Introduction is the same in each book. Furthermore, the volume addressing science includes a CD‐ROM which contains the mathematics and history content.
...
The real strength of this book is the way in which fundamental insights about science learning and teaching have been illustrated through examples of the practice of science teaching. Research reports of the design and evaluation of teaching in the academic literature would benefit from a similar approach. Throughout the book, the quality of the writing is excellent. I can imagine using the book to stimulate thoughtful, productive discussions with science teachers through professional development activities.
...
Each set of authors give background references on the research that they drew upon, though the treatment of content is given rather little attention in the chapters. Unsurprisingly, the cited literature derives mainly from the USA.
Carboni, Lisa Wilson (March 2006). "How Students Learn: Mathematics in the Classroom". Teaching Children Mathematics. 12 (7). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: 384. ISSN 1073-5836. JSTOR 41198776.
The review notes:
This book examines practical implications of research related to teaching and learning mathematics at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels. It illustrates classroom- and curriculum-based examples of three fundamental principles of learning: that learning should engage students' existing understandings and preconceptions; that learning requires integration of both factual knowledge and conceptual frameworks; and that self-monitoring, or metacognition, facilitates learning.
...
Although this book is quite complex, it is worth reading, especially the chapter by Fuson, Kalchman, and Bransford on mathematical understanding and Griffin's extensive consideration of whole-number knowledge and conceptual frameworks. These thoughtful commentaries begin to build an important link between what research tells us about how students learn, and what we can do in our classrooms to facilitate that learning.
Godsell, Sarah (2016-12-03). "What is history? Views from a primary school teacher education programme". South African Journal of Childhood Education. 6 (1). University of Johannesburg. doi:10.4102/sajce.v6i1.485. ISSN 2223-7682. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-03-30.
The review notes:
This article also engages with the research presented by Donovan and Bransford in ‘How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom’. As one of their three foundational principles, they write ‘new understandings are constructed on a foundation of existing understandings and experiences’ (Donovan & Bransford 2005:4). In order to construct the new understandings, it is crucial to investigate what the foundational understandings are. This follows from a broadly constructivist theory of learning (Scott & Hargreaves 2015:37–38). I argue that where the foundational understandings are imbued with ideology, this will impact all new understandings built.
Davis, Seonaid (September 2005). "Teaching Science Through the Use of Modelling [How Students Learn History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom]". The Crucible. 371 (1). Science Teachers' Association of Ontario: 16–18. ISSN 0381-8047.

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

Cunard (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, as having been reviewed by multiple independent sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query: is this a single book or three separate books? Reviews #1–5 listed by Cunard above refer to three distinct books, How Students Learn: History in the Classroom, How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom and How Students Learn: Mathematics in the Classroom, though #6 cites a single work entitled How Students Learn History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom and #7 appears to do the same, though I can't access it. WorldCat lists all four. Can anyone shed any light on this? If, as seems likely, these are three books that were also published simultaneously as an omnibus edition, is this a common format in this field and, if so, how do we deal with such works? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom (2001) is the 1st title published and covers all the subjects, the other three titles - How students learn: History in the Classroom (2005), How students learn: Mathematics in the Classroom (2005), and How students learn: Science in the Classroom (2005), are more specific (as the titles imply). a "Publication history" section could be added to cover these, also a "Reception" section could differentiate the various reviews for each title. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into it a bit more, it seems that you're right (though the 2001 date is incorrect – per the sources and WorldCat, How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom was published in 2005 and the others in the same year). As such, only two of the source identified by Cunard (#6 and #7) are directly relevant, the other sources being about closely-related but nonetheless different books. Source #6 contains significant discussion of this book, but we require multiple sources, so whether or not the book is notable would seem to depend on what source #7 has to say about it. Unfortunately I haven't been able to access that source or find out anything about it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, agree about it being published in 2005, i based the 2001 year on the worldCat entries here but it looks like that it may have been the year of the individual contributions within the book, anyway i still reckon this is wikinotable, maybe the article could be reworked ie. "How Students Learn is a series of books ....." with reception section reflecting this etc etc. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "How Students Learn is a series of books ....." is the best way to present the material about these books. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to How People Learn. Even if this is an independently notable book or series of books, it is still clearly a spinoff of the other, and combining the information from both currently short and stubby articles will create a single more informative article. BD2412 T 20:03, 6 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Tiande[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG.~~ Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep according to this page, he is in "the collections of the National Art Museum of China, Shanghai Art Museum, Suzhou Museum, Shenzhen Art Museum, Guangdong Art Museum, Hong Kong Museum of Art, Museum of Fine Arts Boston, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Spencer Museum of Art, the British Museum, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, and UC Berkeley Art Museum and the Pacific Film Archive"... I confirmed and added a source for the Met, so i am not doubting the other claims much. Meets WP:ARTIST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination sorry, ThatMontrealIP, you're absolutely right. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I was also thinking he was not notable at first. Aside from the museum collections, there is not a lot of coverage in English. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:29, 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 deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Vohra[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any achievement by this pediatric intensivist. There's just not enough reliable sources here to warrant an article. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 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) 09:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrios Kalogerakos[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG. The player barely scraps through NFOOTY, as he played 1 game in Greek second division for Acharnaikos in 2017 before his retirement. All other alleged caps are completely unsoursed and repeatedly added back by a single-purpose account (used to be Worldfootyinfo (talk · contribs), now taken over by GreekSuperleagueAcademies (talk · contribs). --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one career pro appearance is not sufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively. Giant Snowman 08:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination, the sources are not good enough for GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dimitris Kalogerakos Hallo, we believe that this article is fully conformed by Wikipedia´s policies! We hold a lot of accounts shared in our team, which is working on finding out and crossing the information with our external collaborators, about those players with notable achievements in young age mostly. Kindly, we are asking you to perceive our goodwill intentions about our goals to enrich articles. We are editing With responsibility articles with incorrections about Greek football players and coaches, which have lack of certified sources or bad information creation and we work with one account for each article (focused on two - three articles max in each account). If you insist about changing some details we are open to discuss and prove the information. Specifically, about that article we found some interviews and sources on websites, where it is mentioned more interesting aspects about this person and we decided not add any of them. We found that he has not only one career pro appearance and regarding the recognition in the Greek football community the information is leniently sufficient. We are open for any discussion! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekSuperleagueAcademies (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete career does not rise to the level of notability by any reasonable standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep since it passes WP:NFOOTY. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:04, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Lundy III[edit]

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

Not seeing how this subject passes WP:NFOOTY nor is there any verifiable coverage to show that this subject pass WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 12:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which doesn't appear to meet the GNG. I found [9] and [10], neither of which is in-depth coverage, but I don't know if I found everything available online. Jogurney (talk) 21:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News Digest (Nigeria)[edit]

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

This article about an online newspaper based in Abuja does not pass WP:GNG and the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. One of their reporters was arrested by the Nigeria Police in 2019 as can be seen here and arraigned in court as can be seen here, for a story not belonging to them. I don't think the Newspaper is qualified to have an article about them at this time. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I belived to have known an idea like (improvement tag),(more citation need) or (notability) tag for improve that's is it, or unless if I had to take it in had way for puting a tag like this (AFD) in an article. In consideration a page with reference from Vanguard Newspaper 🇳🇬, Punch Newspaper 🇳🇬, BluePrint Newspaper 🇳🇬, DailyTrust Newspaper 🇳🇬 and P.M News or PremiumTimes 🇳🇬 is a very² dependable sources of information in African at large and if an improvement tags is there with time it will be coverage able and the WP:GNG . Respect (F5pillar 11:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The newspaper fails WP:GNG. All of the references cited in the article are about the owner's arrest and not about the newspaper itself. The newspaper has not been discussed in reliable sources and does not deserve a separate article at this moment. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:14, 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. I don't believe WP:SALT is appropriate yet, as there was only one recreation since the 2018 AfD. I've watchlisted it and will G4/SALT if recreation becomes an issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afeez Olawale Oladipo[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after previous AFD deletion, but speedy deletion was denied as the article is apparently considerably expanded . Yet, all the arguments from original AFD still stand. BlameRuiner (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - still fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Non-notable article of a footballer who still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY after the last AfD. Article should also be salted with no prejudice of recreation if subject becomes inherently notable in the future. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 18:29, 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) 09:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Lepcha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, never won any state or national election. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for being vice presidents of small political parties, but this is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to actually get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Serving as the vice president of a tiny party is not enough for him to have an article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I strongly believe that this subject does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria listed on the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges. The politician has not won any election and has very little votes that show he is not a popular politician. Cedix (talk) 11:23, 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) 09:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Porat[edit]

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

Potentially a non-notable singer, fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article passes WP:NMUSIC — note that NMUSIC does not include either being a non-winning competitor in a singing reality show or the number of views a person does or doesn't have on YouTube — but the references do not add up to a WP:GNG pass: three are primary sources self-published by herself or a television show she was directly affiliated with, which do not help to establish her notability as they do not represent independent attention. Four more are short blurbs on blogs, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. One is a university student newspaper, a type of source which NMUSIC makes a special point of deprecating as ineligible for use. And after that, the only thing left is a short blurb on the website of a single local radio station, which is not enough to get her over GNG all by itself in the absence of accomplishing anything that would pass NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Bearcat's conclusions. Rogermx (talk) 12:12, 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Vikør[edit]

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

~~Does not meet N:PROF. Mccapra (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nomination with thanks to others. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR; multiple books published by Uni presses. Here are sample reviews: [11] in The Journal of African History, and [12] in The Arab Studies Journal. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough reviews found and now added to the article to pass WP:AUTHOR, per K.e.coffman. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR as demonstrated above. TJMSmith (talk) 11:36, 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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Dunstan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a voice actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for an actor is not simply the ability to list acting roles he's had -- it requires reliable source media coverage about him and his performances to verify the significance of his roles. But none of the five footnotes here are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all: there's a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person on an unreliable anime fansite, his own self-published website about himself, the primary source production website of a series he acted in, the self-published acting résumé of somebody else, and an entry in an IMDB-like directory that indiscriminately includes all voice actors whether they clear our notability standards or not. None of these are notability-supporting sources, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There really is very little coverage on the subject, despite a formidable body of work. I hope someone can locate some reliable sources, because someone with so many credits under his belt deserves an article, in my opinion. Given that I am conflicted over this, I am voting "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People don't "deserve" articles just for having acting credits — every actor has always had acting credits, because they wouldn't be actors if they hadn't acted, so if that were how it worked then every actor who exists would always get a free pass over NACTOR. People get articles by having the reliable source coverage you admit that you can't find, and are not exempted from having to have reliable source coverage just because the article says stuff. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This actor has done literally hundreds of episodes of various popular animated shows, Bearcat. By that, I mean that he passes WP:NACTOR. WP:GNG is a separate issue, and I hope others can find more coverage than what I found. If not, I will consider updating my vote. However, there is already a "Delete" vote, and other editors are free to disagree with me and vote to "Delete", too. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - A person doesn't pass NACTOR just by having roles — a person passes NACTOR by having GNG-worthy coverage about their performances to demonstrate that the roles were "significant" enough to count as NACTOR-passing roles. If all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR was list roles, and sources weren't necessary, then every actor who exists would always automatically pass NACTOR, and the entire concept of having any notability standards for actors at all would be dead. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, I don't think that is true. Not every significant character in every notable production gets GNG-worthy coverage. Those roles can still go towards NACTOR, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say every role in every production gets that kind of coverage. But the actor still has to have some evidence of it before he passes NACTOR, because as I said before, if all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR was list roles, and sources weren't necessary, then every actor who exists would always automatically pass NACTOR, and the entire concept of having any notability standards for actors at all would be dead. Bearcat (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, I'm afraid I still don't agree with your thoughts on NACTOR. Thank you for your responses, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether you agree with my "thoughts" or not: I'm not articulating a personal opinion, I'm simply summarizing the long-established sitewide consensus around how NACTOR works, and have not expressed even one word of personal opinion. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearcat, I'm happy to continue chatting to you, but I don't want to clutter up this AfD. If you'd like to, you can contact me at my talk page. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards a Weak Keep based on the article. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This needs work, but I believe WP:NACTOR is satisfied. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:24, 05 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self Regional Healthcare[edit]

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

This article seems to fail WP:NHOSPITALS. It has coverage in secondary sources for a lawsuit, and local coverage for its trauma center. Citrivescence (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Citrivescence, which of the three requirements for hospital notability does this appear to fail? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: The requirement that it be mentioned by a source outside its local service area. I wasn't counting WebMD or the hospital directory as I couldn't find evidence that they're considered reliable sources. Citrivescence (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:39, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music In The Mountains[edit]

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

A non notable local festival with no evidence of secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added several secondary sources. StrayBolt (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEVENT StrayBolt has added RS. Lightburst (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The four sources currently cited are trivial coverage.

SF Examiner Image Magazine - two partial columns in a magazine that was included with the Sunday Paper. The bulk of the article covers what is occurring at the event, and has very little about why the event is important. This sort of article often appears concerning public events. The article is more like a prose listing of a schedule of events.

"The Mountains Ring With Music" (The Union) - a bit better article that covers a bit more about the series and is less of a schedule, but is still lacking in non-trivial coverage.

"Music in the Mountains announces new artistic and music director" (The Union) - The credit for this article is "Special to the Union," which is almost certainly a press release from the organization that puts on the event. Thus, it is probably a first hand source and not reliable.

"The Everything Family Guide to Northern California ...," (Book) - the mention of this Music in the Mountains occurs in a list, is brief and trivial.

Of the four sources, only "The Mountains Ring with Music" is at a stretch a support for notability. There are plenty of great events out there, not all of them are notable. I'm not sure if WP:EVENT applies here or not, this article is about a series of musical concerts, not about one event. The article needs more non-trivial WP:RS citations to prove notability. Maybe this event could be merged in to Nevada County, California? See Kate Wolf and how the Kate Wolf Memorial Concert is handled with a link to the event website. Also, it looks like High Sierra Music Festival could use some cleanup, it needs more citations. Cxbrx (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. StrayBolt added another source (thanks!), "Music in the Mountains", which describes who will be playing at the upcoming event. I see the article as trivial coverage in a fairly local newspaper, though it does help authenticate the start date. WP:PRODUCTREV #1 provides a bit of guidance here, and states "Be significant: brief and routine reviews (including Zagat) do not qualify. ... For example, a review of a local harvest festival in a local newspaper or a book review in a newsletter by a city's library would not qualify as significant coverage." The bulk of the coverage seems to be local, though there was the SF Examiner magazine notice. See also WP:ROUTINE, "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." There does seem to be many similar articles with notability issues, see Category:Event articles with topics of unclear notability. In summary, I don't have strong feelings about this, the entire category is a bit of a mess. I appreciate StrayBolt's efforts and realize that we probably have a mild difference of opinion. It would be great to see input from another editor who evaluate the article including the new sources with regard to WP:EVENT. Cxbrx (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:35, 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) 13:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Color Turning[edit]

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

Non-notable long disbanded band whose career highlights seems be "playing small cafe shows and to larger crowds in the parking lot" and building up "a local and internet following". No evidence of notability; indeed, six out of eight citations are dead links including the band's own website. Article history shows it was created in 2009 by Iheartpunnk who has no susequent edits and used the edit rational "Created official page" - suggestive of COI? Emeraude (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Their sole album drew a positive AllMusic review, but that appears to be about it, aside from stuff like OC Weekly and casual mentions elsewhere. Caro7200 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep their career did pick up when they were signed to a notable label and toured the mid-west according to a third party bio at AllMusic where there is also a staff written album review. Also found this piece here in the Vancouver Straight so they did tour Canada as well, couldn't find the OC weekly piece but with that they have a claim of passing WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Caro7200. The band does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. With the exception of the AllMusic source, none of their other bodies of work have been discussed in reliable sources. In my opinion, the AllMusic source isn't enough to establish notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:11, 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kwankhao Mor.Ratanabandit[edit]

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

The content has been cited with primary sources and fails to meet WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fairly in-depth coverage exists by Siam Sport[13] and SMMsport.com[14]. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't access the first article and the second one looks like routine sports reporting to me, but see my comment below. Papaursa (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finding good coverage on Muay Thai fighters has always been difficult. However, if the claim of being a Rajadamnern Stadium champion can be verified by a reliable source, then he would meet WP:NKICK and I would say he is notable. I know from past experience that finding this info can be a difficult task. Papaursa (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a number of sources that say he was a Rajadamnern champion, but they didn't necessarily fit the definition of a reliable source. The best one I found was a list of fight results at [15]. Between this and the sheer number of other sources, I'm going to claim he was a Rajadamnern champion and thus meets WP:NKICK. I have added this source to the article. Papaursa (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:35, 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 merge to Memon people. While more participation here would have been optimal, over two weeks have passed since the nomination. Both the nominator and the sole participant in the discussion have stated that merging is in order, to different degrees, so closing with a merge result at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okhai[edit]

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

There's not much information, just basically the fact of existence. There are no reliable independent ref. As alternative, can be redirected to and mentioned in the Memon people. Less Unless (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Memon people for now. There is no need to delete this information. The article can be recreated with good sources. May be there are sources in the local language for this that I cant find. Perhaps local editors can help, in finding the sources in local language. Cedix (talk) 10:56, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Azrael[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. It was deleted at previous AfD. Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's some decent coverage of them on newspapers.com, such as this article: 1, 2. This blog post, meanwhile, isn't what one would consider a reliable source, but does give a detailed explanation of what exactly the band was: a group that was well known to the metal scene, signed with Ironclad Recordings, and eventually petered out, but continues to have some following online. From archive.org, it looks like their website went down around 2008. There are also some articles online (e.g., 1), and it wouldn't surprise me if there are a bunch of offline sources (as the newspapers.com results suggest). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the two newspaper articles identified above at Newspapers.com and the loudwire piece they also have an independent staff written bio at AllMusic here and there are also two independent reviews of their albums at AllMusic as well, so there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:35, 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) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus at the previous AfD was to delete. These pages are typically a WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate lists of being the Nth player to achieve a trivial statistical cross section. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio (like the GA Dwyane Wade does). On a related note in the NFL, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Brett Favre was to delete. —Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FIBA World Championship bronze medalist! First player of 6 ft. 4 in. or shorter to register at least 100 blocks in a season! Second-best NBA player of all time whose last name starts with a W and is four letters long! (Okay, I came up with that last one myself.) Lots and lots of trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I want to also add that many pages in Category:Career achievements of basketball players should be deleted. There is simply no notable content is such lists. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what the outcome is here first.—Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sheer trivia, agree with the points from the previous discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge whatever makes sense to Dwyane Wade. This was previously a strong delete at AfD. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Agbakoba[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. She is the managing director of a non-notable company. The references cited in the article are not independent of her. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources independent of her. The article is pretty much a promotional piece written in a promotional tone. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable enough. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:18, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skaria Thomas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, never won any state or national election. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for being chairmen of political party splinter factions, but this is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to actually get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I strongly believe that this subject does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria listed on the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges. The politician has not won any election. The article can be recreated if election victory is achieved by the subject. Cedix (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Practically unanimous. Basically all the merge !votes, and the lone redirect and delete !votes, all are based on "too soon", recentism, etc.; it's difficult to properly evaluate such things riiiiight in the middle of the whole thing while coverage is increasing throughout the news almost on a hourly basis and some "recentism" !votes have already been amended to keep; a justified "too soon" opinion on March 29th may have been different if posted just days later. No prejudice against renomination in a few weeks. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoombombing[edit]

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

This is content already largely mentioned at Zoom Video Communications, and seems to be a case of WP:RECENT and not deserving of its own encyclopedia entry. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article contains sufficient information and the topic is something that people will be searching for as a separate topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupertrussell1 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes sources which are not present (and should not be present) in the Zoom article. All sourcing is from gold-plated WP:RS and include NRK (Norway), The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, among others. Given the extremely high quality of the sources and the worldwide coverage, the article exceeds the WP:GNG. It should be noted that stand-alone articles routinely include content and sources already present in abbreviated form in other articles, and then fully expand on it with additional facts and sources, as encyclopedically appropriate. XavierItzm (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good sourcing, as XavierItzm says. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Zoom Video Communications per WP:NOPAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. Yes, it's well sourced, but it can be adequately covered in the main article, where it would also benefit from additional context about the software. We don't need a stand-alone article for a flash-in-the-pan meme. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article doesn't need to be deleted, it has seven sources. However, it does need to be expanded because there isn't that much information in the article.
Keep or merge to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on teleconferencing or similar. This is not a Zoom-specific phenomenon.--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoom Video Communications. This can be mentioned in the article with a single sentence. It does not deserve a stand-alone article. This is not going to have lasting notability. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep the useful information, or put that information elsewhere and keep the useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XavierItzm. Gamaliel (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and not merge - extensive sourcing in major WP:RS and has had a major effect on online education. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes, there are WP:RS discussing this phenomenon, but that's not the only requirement for whether something is notable and of encyclopedic value. I very much feel WP:RECENT and WP:SUSTAINED need to be heeded in cases like this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you've said exactly that before and I disagree. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Redirect~~ to Zoom Video Communications (or another page) - There's no indication of lasting significance for this neologism, and we have all sorts of articles on trolling, videoconferencing, culture during covid-19, etc. where it could be briefly mentioned. Suggesting it point to the main Zoom article because it's already mentioned there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was skeptical, but this has continued to get very high-profile coverage since I !voted. Updating accordingly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it seems to refer to a broader social phenomenon that has little to do with Zoom itself, and more to do with changes to videoconferencing culture. Julius177 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you really point to a change in "videoconferencing culture" with 1 weeks worth of incidents? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The FBI has stepped in and said that video-teleconferencing and online classroom hijacking on any platform is "Zoom-bombing."^[1]. Ouch. XavierItzm (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete just as the nominator said, this “phenomenon” is too reliant on recentism and waaaaay too soon. It’s not even independently notable, frankly. ⌚️ (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because people have been complaining about this problem for years. It just wasn't widely noticed until now because of the uptick in use of the platform. It also has specific implications for Zoom, versus other platforms, because of the nature of the meeting IDs, screen-sharing settings, etc. that inexperienced users don't know how to protect. ^[2] Librarian lena (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep zoombombing is an important phenomenon and will be a new word in the English dictionary. We had to take several measures at my university (MIT) to protect ourselves against this form of cyber disruption. I believe this will be an important Wikipedia article and could also show some statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.47.83 (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep Zoombombing should definitely be merged. It is a stub, just merge it with the Zoom article. 104.62.158.32 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is now a WP:COMMONNAME. Please witness "zoombombing" - Google Search & how many results it produces. Peaceray (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out WP:GOOGLEHITS. ⌚️ (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: To your point, WP:GOOGLEHITS indicates "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search."

zoombombing - Google News

I will concede that it is a little soon for zoombombing to be mentioned in books, so nothing in Google Books. Similarly, while zoombombing is appearing now at Google Scholar, what I have seen there as of 2020-04-03 is either irrelevant or not particularly scholarly.

Peaceray (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zoom Video Communications. I was thinking to keep, but this article can probably be adequately sumerized in the main article. Mostly per SpicyMilkBoy. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Zoom Video Communications. I don't feel this is notable just yet per WP:RECENTISM. Interstellarity (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as we usually do with neologisms that have attracted news coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zoom Video Communications for now. At the moment, the coverage (and the name) generally relates specifically to the Zoom app, and the content is short enough to be included in that article. If this becomes a lasting phenomenon which affects video conferencing more generally, then we can reconsider restoring this as a separate article. Robofish (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Zoombombing main article is six multi-sentence paragraphs backed by 17 sources.
The FBI and the New York Times, quite separately (the NYT a week before the FBI) have defined zoomboming as including any videoconferencing software. Several of the sources refer to non-Zoom platform attacks. Is the merge option even viable? XavierItzm (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zoom Video Communications as per Robofish. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When readers read the CNN article with the headline "FBI warns video calls are getting hijacked. It's called 'Zoombombing'" and go to Wikipedia to search for the term, they should reach this article. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of keep. There are numerous similar services to Zoom and "Zoombombing" can generically refer to an unauthorized intrusion into a videoconference on any platform, not just Zoom. Some thought should be given to the emergence of future content that may be added. Special legislation may be enacted to curtail this new form of malfeasance. There may occur notable instances. There may be discussion of the effects, or how to guard against this, or how it is handled in court cases. A person may hear the term "Zoombombing" and not know what it means. For all these reasons, I would recommend to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirtyDoggg (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rosiestep. There are now enough sources to WP:RS to justify a definite keep. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Kristen Setera (30 March 2020). "FBI Warns of Teleconferencing and Online Classroom Hijacking During COVID-19 Pandemic". FBI. FBI Boston. Retrieved 31 March 2020. As large numbers of people turn to video-teleconferencing (VTC) platforms to stay connected in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, reports of VTC hijacking (also called "Zoom-bombing") are emerging nationwide.
^ Santo, Raychel (March 27, 2020). "The devil is in the details: Tips for hosting smooth online gatherings using Zoom". Medium.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RiTz21, as has been noted, third-party coverage per WP:GNG would be needed. Sandstein 13:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Sheet[edit]

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

A product that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. There are only a couple of sources being used here that actually talk about the product that are not its own website, and neither of them appear to be from reliable sources. I searched for additional sources, and only came up with sales pages & listings, and a couple forum posts mentioning it. I was unable to find any kind of coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not seeing WP:N as being met. If someone can find better sources than are in the article, I'd be happy to reconsider. But I can't find anything. The name may be making it hard to find? Hobit (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Please forgive my 'noobness' in replying here (I hope this is how replies are sent?!) Products from The Only Sheet are available on multiple Online RPG Stores:

Paizo: https://paizo.com/companies/theOnlySheet DriveThru RPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/3221/The-Only-Sheet OpenGaming Store: https://www.opengamingstore.com/collections/the-only-sheet

Also, the pennyforatale Twitch group are using one of The Only Sheet products for their <Age of Ashes> Tabletop RPGs. They have published (at writing time) sevens episodes. Here is a list of these episodes: https://www.twitch.tv/search?term=pennyforatale%20age%20of%20ashes — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiTz21 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does that helps establish notability?? Are there aspects of the page that can be improved? RiTz21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiTz21 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need coverage in reliable sources - eg. reviews in published/online magazines with editorial staff would help. Pavlor (talk) 07:28, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Field[edit]

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

Non-notable Scottish magazine with little citation provided. James Richards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrichards12345 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article requires some work but the subject easily fulfils WP:GNG. If Britannica notes it among Scotland's cultural institutions that's about as definitive as you get, for retention at the very least. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. James Richards 01:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep The worst case here would be merger to the List of magazines in Scotland and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article could undoubtedly do with be improved, but Scottish Field is a well known magazine which has been published for over a century. The Britannica point raised above strikes me as fair - you would certainly struggle to find even a small newsagent in Scotland that did not stock it. That said I am surprised at the limited amount of online coverage an internet search turns up which could make improving this a bit trickier than it might appear at first glance. Dunarc (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fairly stymied by internet searches as well but I think a large part of the problem is that it seems to be difficult to tailor search terms that will exclude going straight to umpteen hits from the magazine's own website. I think there may be search engine tools to allow one to filter these hits out but I don't know how to go about it. Any ideas? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right Mutt Lunker, that is part of the issue with searching for it. Stumped for an obvious way round it at the moment. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: A stack of worn-out copies of Scottish Field used to be the meagre comfort available in my dentist's waiting room! As with others above, I am in mixed feelings on this AfD: trying not to fall back on my "it's notable" intuition - although that is sustained by the Britannica reference - but having difficulty finding strongly references elsewhere which might help expand the article from this stub. It has maybe been ubiquitous in the background without having the type of content to attract academic evaluation, etc. However some traces of evidence can be found pointing to the magazine serving as a venue for discussion involving the likes of Edwin Muir ([16]), Hugh MacDiarmid and Ian Hamilton Finlay (Scottish Review of Books, 2012). AllyD (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have discovered that Bud Neill^[1] was a contributor and Marion Chesney was the fashion editor.^[2] I also came across an indication that Neil Munro may have contributed but annoyingly I didn't make note of it; will try to find it again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient references appear to exist, passes GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/arts/bud_neill_creator_of_lobey_dosser.shtml
^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-50974575

}

Keep per keepers. --Doncram (talk) 01:53, 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.

[1] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/news/dhanraj-nathwani-new-vice-president-of-gujarat-cricket-association/articleshow/71352787.cms

[2] ttps://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hip-n-hap/for-all-krishna-devotees/articleshow/70612059.cms

[3] ttps://www.insider.com/2-pigeons-goair-aircraft-india-passengers-capture-viral-video-2020-3

[4] ttps://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/others/namaste-trump-were-ready/articleshow/74249741.cms

[5] ttps://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/cover-story/motera-stadium-gujarats-grand-stand/articleshow/74050920.cms

[6] ttps://www.thenews.com.pk/print/602175-world-s-largest-stadium-being-opened-in-two-months

[7] ttps://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/variety/picchvai-art-adds-new-colours-to-lord-dwarkadheesh/article28973951.ece

[8] ttps://thewire.in/sport/bcci-jay-amit-shah-arun-dhamal

[9] ttps://www.crictracker.com/cricketing-trends-on-social-media-today-27-january-2020/

[10] ttps://indianexpress.com/article/india/namaste-trump-donald-trump-india-visit-motera-stadium-narendra-modi-6281786/

[11] Kristen Setera (30 March 2020). "FBI Warns of Teleconferencing and Online Classroom Hijacking During COVID-19 Pandemic". FBI. FBI Boston. Retrieved 31 March 2020. As large numbers of people turn to video-teleconferencing (VTC) platforms to stay connected in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, reports of VTC hijacking (also called "Zoom-bombing") are emerging nationwide.

[12] Santo, Raychel (March 27, 2020). "The devil is in the details: Tips for hosting smooth online gatherings using Zoom". Medium.

[13] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/arts/bud_neill_creator_of_lobey_dosser.shtml

[14] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-50974575

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]