Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 April	2 May >

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 and redirect to Boney M. discography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Paradise – The Greatest Hits of Boney M. – Vol. 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Aaaaaaand here we are again, with yet another non-notable Boney M. compilation that the IP refuses to leave as a redirect, so an AfD is the last resort. Unlike Best in Spain, however, which is also up for deletion, this is much more straightforward – not only was it only available in just one country (Germany), it wasn't even available in the shops... this only ever existed to buy through the BMG Music Club. As it was never available commercially anywhere in the world, there are of course no reviews, no chart placings, and no certifications. Richard3120 (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from this being an overwrite performed by the Hanoi vandal, this compilation also did not chart nor are there any known reliable reviews. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Boney M. discography, and in either case add WP:SALT protection to prevent reversions. It looks like I am not the only one to notice all the recent articles for cheap and forgotten Boney M compilations. Like the others, this comp was released for some quick profits with absolutely no notice from the public or the music media, and there is nothing else to say about it beyond the fact that a well-known Wikipedia vandal likes to mess with it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:17, 2 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Spiewak[edit]

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

Article is primarily about his partner. Not the primary subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Adabow (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I couldn't find sources to prove he is notable on his own at this point. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Just because his husband Jim Parsons is notable, it doesn't make him automatically notable.-- LACaliNYC ✉ 00:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 8 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Gino's (Australia)[edit]

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

Non-notable family-owned restaurant. I wasn't able to find any SIGCOV about this Australian restaurant. Natg 19 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand that results do not immediately appear due to rating programs i.e. Zomato, Open Table etc. however the restaurant is widely known in Melbourne as there are multiple news articles and blog posts.--Victoryboy Victoryboy's talk 12:50, 2 May 2020 (AEST) Stricking Sockmaster MistyGraceWhite (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are decreased search engine results due to Papa Gino's (United States), however there is coverage by the press regarding the restaurant and it is very well known in the Italian community of Melbourne.--Crelache Crelache's talk 14:03, 2 May 2020 (AEST)
Keep One of the few Melbourne restaurants that hasn't changed ownership in over forty years, and there is media coverage of it.--Soccer980331 Soccer980331's talk 19:13, 2 May 2020 (AEST)
Blocked socks. MER-C 15:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill eatery. Note to closer (Admin or otherwise). Votes from Crelache and Soccer980331 should taken with a pinch of salt as per SPA, they are dormant accounts who came back just to vote on this AFd and then disappeared. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pizza store with one location. not widely known or reported on outside of the local community so not enough non local sources.Grmike (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Keep - Per being a notable restaurant, though in a Melbourne. Article sourcing are decent as well. WP:GNG applies here.BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - After further research I see that most of the coverage are very local. No national. Delete for now and recreate in future if expanded.BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To local and not enough non-local sourcing anyway that would help it not be to narrow. Also, interesting timing as I was just discussing somewhere else how many Italian restaurants named Gino's there are out there. It seems to be a popular brand name for them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability (and I'm pretty sure that I had dinner here a few years ago, and the restaurant didn't strike me as being anything special). Nick-D (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the requirements for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 7 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Pierson[edit]

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

I initially created Olivia Pierson to be a redirect to the reality show she was on. User Ciaragomez1 created the page in poor condition so I moved it to a draft for it to be properly worked on, not trash in the mainspace. Ciaragomez1 then recreated the page so now it has to be nominated for deletion as the subject at this time does not have enough reliable sources, least of all not of her employer, E!, outside of tabloidism of being a “WAG” (even that’s a stretch) for independent notability to have an article. Latching onto “we want to be Kanadian Kardashians” label is insufficient.~~I tried to be reasonable for once.~~ ⌚️ (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - heavily refbombed and given the subject matter, likely to be undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 15:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the draft and the article, refbombing, lots of non-rs sources, not independently notable, etc. Tknifton (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment Creator blocked for being an advertising only account. Tknifton (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this person easily warrants an article, but obviously the current article is garbage. It was filled with spam, and after I tried removing the spam, there's nothing left. But, this person is clearly notable, and a good article can be built. They've been covered in sources like VICE and the Washington Post, not just E!Online, or NBC-affiliated properties (though it's hard to keep up with which media is owned by who). There's no harm in keeping the article, now that the creator is blocked, but there's also no harm in deleting it, as long as people are free to make a new article in its place. --Rob (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state it should be speedily deleted. This rationale is contradictory. ⌚️ (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have nominated Draft:Olivia Pierson for speedy deletion under both g11 and g6 (as a technical deletion). Tknifton (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came to this after the article had already been restubbed into something that basically doesn't even make any real notability claim at all anymore, so I want to clarify that I did look at the prior edit history — and what I'm seeing in it is largely primary sources, problematic sources like Refinery29 and Daily Hive, and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, all reference bombing an advertorial that reads like it was written by a PR agent. I suppose it's possible that a good article could be written about her — I doubt it, but I don't know nearly enough about the "knockoff Kardashian wannabes" genre of television to say for sure — but that article wasn't it. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do it right, but no version of the article to date has represented anybody doing it right. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most people in reality TV are not notable, she is no exception to that general rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 8 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Alencar[edit]

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

There's no coverage in-depth about this person and I don't think she meets WP:BIO. All the references in the article are only citations or come from a non-reliable media outlets. This seems a case of WP:SOAPBOX to me. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 22:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some coverage, but overall it seems minor enough to not prove GNG is met. I looked as well for a chart ranking that could help, but no luck. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sources are unreliable. The very few ones which do are reliable barely mention her. There is not enough coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cites a reference by Folha de S.Paulo about Bianca Alencar, a Brazilian newspaper published in the city of São Paulo and the most widely circulated newspaper in Brazil. See here, they still mention it. Fábio47447 (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Weak Delete or Draftify: I am at a disadvantage here because I can't appraise the non-English sources, but the subject does seem to be attaining some level of notability, and she has a decent social media following, which goes towards the second criterion of WP:NACTOR. If people feel that it is a bit WP:TOOSOON, "draftifying" might be an option to consider. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I do read Portuguese and that article was deleted from Portuguese Wikipedia exactly because there were no in-depth coverage about her. There are some few sources in the article that could be considered in-depth coverage, but they are all from non-reliable sources.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 20:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SirEdimon, based on your response I am updating my vote and downgrading it. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Durham[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as a non-notable write-in candidate who received minimal coverage from local sources eight years ago. An obscure third-party run does not confer notability. KidAd (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a fringe party candidate for president is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing, but the sources here aren't getting him over GNG — five of the seven footnotes are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that are not support for notability at all, such as the self-published content of his own political party and a government document. And while the other two are from real media, one's a low-power community radio station and the other is an alt-weekly newspaper, which does not add up to enough coverage to get him over GNG if it's all you can find. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn’t meet GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Fringe presidential candidate. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wp:gng. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 13:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Bakre[edit]

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

There's no indication that the films, or his roles in them, are notable, & I do not consider that participation in one reality show implies automatic notability; there's nothing else substantial. Iam aware of the previous keep, and I think it mistaken--the sources were assumed to show notability , but they're the customary sort of promotional interviews and other puffery. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject passes WP:BASIC and the first criterion of WP:NACTOR. He played a major role in Sugar Rush, a film currently occupying the fourth spot on the list of the highest grossing Nigerian films of all time. He also had a major role in Kunle Afolayan's Mokalik, a notable film that has been critically reviewed by Premium Times, TNS, YNaija, Nollywood Reinvented, The Lagos Review, and Medium. Other reliable coverage of the film can be seen here, here and here. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — In the very least just like my senior colleague Versace1608 already said I do believe subject of the article does satisfy WP:BASIC. In the previous AFD I !voted a keep so yeah I’m still inclined to uphold that if anything he has really advanced his career even more since then. Celestina007 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The subject has been notable for his performances in films like Sugar Rush and Mokalik. Abishe (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I understand where the nominator is coming from, because, in terms of WP:NACTOR, it could be said that the article was created a little prematurely. But, that aside, there is an abundance of coverage on the subject in reliable sources (even if some of the articles appear a little frivolous in nature). There's enough to pass both WP:GNG and NACTOR, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Face Shield[edit]

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

The issue of notability pops up during the RM for this article. I have to agree the basis of this article is a little weak. It talks about "Apple Face Shield" as if it were a product you can go to some curbside Apple Store and buy, but all the sources in the article simply discuss how Apple is churning out generic face shields to meet new demand. That's great, but not really encyclopedic. I guess I would say, the big issue is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR. You can twist anything into a "product" if you want, but this is hardly the new iPhone. --Quiz shows 19:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I honestly can't tell if this was a joke article or not. Apple (and many other big and small companies) do produce fairly generic, non-branded facemasks on a temporary basis, a fact that warrants mention in one of the pages related to pandemic response... but not as a standalone article, and not based on Apple fan(atic)'s WP:OR which conceptualizes this as some sort of major new product release. <humor>I bet they'll be waiting in line for the second-generation Apple Face Shield SE to come out next year.</humor> -- Netoholic @ 20:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to products section of Apple inc. It appears to be a legitimate product designed by apple to be unique among faceshields. Seems to have created a buzz online. I agree that there is not enough for an article, but this is information that wikipedia should provide somewhere. My suggestion is at the apple article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has received significant coverage from reliable news sources, and that is what matters. feminist #WearAMask😷 13:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect same as above. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NPRODUCT. Sources are week and the only claim to notability is that it's a generic face shield made by Apple. Notability is not inherited. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete products like this are being made globally, there's nothing here that's unique. Many other large companies have shifted to mask production. $ɱ$ (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , just like the overpriced "Apple stand" , it's not that notable rather than being a joke. flixwito ^(•‿•)^ 01:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. We can revisit notability after months if needed. desmay (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, just because Apple made it, that doesn't make it notable. Possibly worth a sentence or two in an Apple products article, but no more. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no branded product called "Apple Face Shield". Axem Titanium (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not currently being sold to the public and right now is not notable. It could be mentioned in the Apple article or in a Apple products article as a product. I am open to revisiting the deletion if it is notable in a few months 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete I agree there is no such branded product. At best this should be a single line in the Apple article. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:07, 7 May 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 Hot cross bun#Other versions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not cross bun[edit]

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

This article describes a relatively niche pastry that I don't believe meets the notability requirements. I do believe it could be merged with hot cross bun. Why? I Ask 17:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Article is likely a hoax. None of the sources mention the term and the image has nothing to with it. Kori (@) 18:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its definitely not a hoax and both sources do mention it. The actual notability is certainly questionable, though. Rorshacma (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that it's a hoax article referencing other hoax articles. Make sure to check the reliability of the listed sources. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Hot cross bun#Other versions - The coverage of the product is definitely not enough to show this variant of the buns being independently notable, and they are already covered in the main article. Quite honestly, I don't think these are notable enough to even be mentioned there - aside from the two articles currently being used in sources, the only other source I can find talking about the term is just a brief mention saying that the product was a failure and discontinued shortly after. But, as long as that information is there, using this as a redirect is about the best that can be done. Rorshacma (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Hot cross bun#Other versions - no independent notability, but could be a passing mention in that section (if the hoax concerns are found to be untrue, otherwise that's a straightforward delete). Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:58, 1 May 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. Based on sources, keep. If notability of the competition is not enough, a topic review is needed. Tone 15:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuridia Durán[edit]

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

local beauty pageant winner. Fails GNG. No other claim to notability. Article contains a lot of unrelated citations to prop it up. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These pages have already been reviewed and no problems were detected. Besides that she is not a local but a national queen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocio445 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC) — Rocio445 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Angelmtz22 (talk • contribs). [reply]
I do not understand the reason why you want to delete it, if you actually insert references to articles from newspaper magazines and national media in the country. In addition to the fact that she is not a local but a national queen who will represent the country at an international level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelmtz22 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC) — Angelmtz22 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]
- John Pack Lambert, (T) We should consider that this user User:I Nyoman Gede Anila is going through all the pages of the beauty queens putting the removal tag. in addition to that he was already warned by the user Praxidicae in his lave od discussion to stop this type of abuse or that he was arrested for doing this sabotage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelmtz22 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty queen. This user here >>> contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Angelmtz22, using and creating multiple accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk • contribs) 17:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:I Nyoman Gede Anila you cannot vote on your own AFD, as you have already said delete by sending the article to AFD. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has won a major national beauty pageant (Mexicana Universal). The razón article has minimally adequate depth, and the minor coverage on other sources is cumulatively adequate. The article is well sourced and not promotional. Daask (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have not found anything on wikipedia policy on pageants. My opinion is that the winner of a national pageant officially recognized by the country who have been recognized in non trivial RS articles should be included. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Sourcing is decent. Plenty of titles and a national major title.BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 2 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duresta[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. References within the article are based on announcements and run-of-the-mill reports and company listings, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:44, 5 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Cabin Crew Entertainment Society[edit]

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

A non notable amateur theatre group. Some local coverage but nothing more than WP:ROUTINE Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about this organisation. Article appears more promotional than anything. Ajf773 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been going for nearly 50 years, has won multiple prizes and has attracted press coverage over the years. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew are there any reliable sources to back up those claims? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weak response considering most of your keep comments are accompanied by a bombardment of sources. Ajf773 (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment - any attention from outside the UK ?Grmike (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Delete. Although the page is existing since 2008, it is having 0 refs right now. Google search does not provide evidence to meet WP:GNG to ensure its further existence over here. Yourmasterishere (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ITSOLD is not a valid reason to keep. An employee social organization that has not received significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 5 May 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 and redirect to Project Sign. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estimate of the Situation[edit]

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

This article is about a document for which we have only the credulous ravings of Ufologists to claim it exists. I cannot find any independent sources which document that this document actually was written. We can discuss the claims at Project Sign, but this standalone article is clearly in violation of WP:FRINGE jps (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very much in two minds, I am not sure that "only being known to UFOlogosts" Means not notable, but by the same token its hardly going to be neutrally written. Given its length maybe merge with Project Sign.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this may be a famous conceit by UFO believers, but it is remarkable in the sense that this particular document does not seem to exist. Also, there seems to be a lot of reading between the lines in Ruppelt's book. The article as it stands borders on WP:HOAX, I would argue. Hard to disentangle. jps (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure it boarders on hoax, so much as being about a hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's weird, though. The article was created in 2005 and I'm not sure there was much written about this supposed document before then. Jerome Clark seems to be the origin of the hoax and it might be that the initial IP was him (the geolocation checks out). jps (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe not, but this is from 2002 [[1]], this form 1998 [[2]], there are also earlier sources I cannot do a full preview off. But it does look very much like the document is a hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Do any WP:RS state or speculate this is a hoax? Ruppelt is considered a Reputable source given his CV (Director of Grudge+Blue Book) and is the definitive source for many of those programs (his book is from 1956 and freely available here [3]. His statements have been confirmed officially several times (Sign is an example of this- he was the first to disclose it). I am not aware of any statement he made that has been directly called into question by any WP:RS accusing him of being a hoaxer is WP:OR and unsubstantiated. Also, others have confirmed this document Whether we have enough material for a standalone article is another matter. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tagged for half a decade, not going to be improved. At most, this merits a couple sentences in Project Sign, but they don't even have to be sentences from this article (so, delete rather than merge). Possibly squatting on a title that could have an article on a legitimate topic, depending on how much there is to say about the military term. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I made improvements to the article in November; see the history. Here's one example. I didn't take the tags off because there's a lot more cleanup to do. "Tagged for half a decade, not going to be improved" is incorrect. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Edward J. Ruppelt's book, much cited in the article, is the definitive word on the Air Force's response during the early years of the UFO panic, in the late 40s & early 50s. There was an Air Force document by Project Sign called "Estimate of the Situation" which said that UFO sightings were extraterrestrial; it was submitted and went up the chain of command until Air Force chief of staff General Vandenberg rejected the analysis, and the copies were destroyed or lost. After Ruppelt's book was published in 1956, UFO enthusiasts seized on the mention of the report being destroyed, and started speculating that there was some kind of important information in it that the Air Force was trying to suppress. This went on, as everything in UFO-world does, for decades and decades and is still being discussed today.

So: Ruppelt is a reliable source, and there are a lot of other UFO-skeptic reliable sources who have written about the conspiracy theory, including Curtis Peebles' 1994 book Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth (pp 31-34 about the report, 136-141 about the conspiracy theory). I agree that the current article needs some rewrites to put the speculation into more non-conspiracy-theory context, but WP:NEXIST says that notability is a property of the subject, not the article, and if there's significant coverage in existing RS, then the subject is notable. WP:ARTN adds that the current state of the article doesn't determine notability — if it's confusing or misleading, then the article should be edited, not deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Why should this article be kept separate from Project Sign given that it isn't even clear that such a document ever existed? jps (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everyone agrees that it existed. The speculation is about whether it was destroyed for conspiracy-theory reasons, or just routine reasons. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - ! I don't think "everyone agrees" that it existed. This is the recollection of Ruppelt as to the contents of a standard document. It would be considered "hearsay" in court. It is not unreasonable to be concerned that Ruppelt may have been mistaken as to its existence or its contents (and, anyway, his summary of the contents is pretty simplistic). jps (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is of course the issue, maybe everyone in UFOolgy agrees that it existed, the problem is does any one outside it think so, it it notable outside its own bubble (or even in it, I can think of a few books on UFO's that make no mention of this)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the sources are iffy. There is not evidence of notability outside UFology, and none for it being independently notable from SIGN.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It depends on what you call "UFology". There are a lot of credulous pro-UFO writers, as well as skeptics who have written about the history of the field. The skeptics are the reliable ones, like Curtis Peebles. Conspiracy theories that aren't true are still notable, if people believe in them and they're written about in reliable sources. I think the article deserves to exist because this is a conspiracy theory, and people searching for information about the real facts should be able to find them on Wikipedia, in detail. Otherwise, we're helping the conspiracy folks. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes Conspiracy theories that aren't true are still notable, the problem is the Conspiracy theory here is project sign.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Project Sign isn't a conspiracy theory. It has been confirmed by the US government as an official UFO program. See for example the CIA's own description of the program: [4] official records have also been released. No "sign" of the estimate of the situation in the related documents though. Hence, the conspiracy theories. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe not, but the cover up, the alleged document all are part of a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory of which Sigh is the chief component.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a majority of WP:FRIND sources can be found to justify a stand alone article that is apart from Project Sign. Right now the sourcing is 99% ufologists or credulous ufo books, which reflects what these people think is important, but it's not a mainstream viewpoint. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Project Sign. This article sits at the tricky interface between "enough coverage to show it's notable" and "too heavily fringey quality of coverage to source a good article" - also known as That Friggin' Cryptozoology Battle here on WP (sigh...). Our fringe guidelines make it difficult to argue for a standalone article under these circumstances. Suggest merging to Project Sign, where treatment as a subtopic means that the sourcing requirements are more lenient and can probably be satisfied. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some newspaper sources that discuss the "Estimate of the Situation" document:
- "Veil of Secrecy: Report on Unidentified Flying Objects Vanishes in Air Force Channels" by Clifford D. Simak, The Minneapolis Star (syndicated) (Dec 5, 1966)
- "The UFO Report: Baffled brass sought easy answer to mystery" by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, The Vancouver Sun (Feb 18, 1978)
- "Says U.S. hiding truth on UFOs" by Pam Sprague, Wausau Daily Herald (Dec 11, 1981)
- "Flying Saucer Mystery Still Being Pursued" by George Earley, Hartford Courant (Oct 23, 1977)

There are more, but I'll stop at four. Sorry that these are paywalled on newspapers.com. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In UFO subjects, news articles are often flying foul of our rules against using WP:SENSATIONalism as a justification for notability. What we would want instead is something along the lines of a skeptic or scientist acknowledging the importance of this document per WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you that: Curtis Peebles' Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth, published by the Smithsonian Institution Press in 1994. I totally understand how difficult it is to keep the UFO articles free of nonsense and conspiracy, but it seems like you're dismissing every book about UFOs (both credulous and skeptical) as "UFOlogy" and every newspaper article as "sensationalist". Is it actually possible for any UFO-related topic to be notable under those standards? :) — Toughpigs (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time reading the section of the Peebles book. It is not clear to me that he has done anything other than retell the Ruppelt narrative. Is that the only source he is using? If so, how does this speak to something meaningful enough to have a dedicated article? Why not just merge with Project Sign? jps (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with User:Toughpigs - Could live with Merge into Project Sign though. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Merge with whatever belief system this document is hallowed in.) GPinkerton (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what happened to WP:CANVAS?! [5] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an appropriate notice per CANVASS: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notification should be neutral and unbiased and not influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. Clearly not the case here. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to debate that, take it to a notice board. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Project Sign due to the dearth of reality-based sources. Guy (help!) 19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was written in 2005 and been flagged for years. If it was going to be improved it would have been done years ago. Obviously not relevant. I'm okay with hoax's having Wikipedia pages, even non-existent papers that support the idea that creatures from outside our Solar System visited Earth and started messing with humans. I'm totally okay with that. But this is beyond the pale. Cleanup on aisle 9. Sgerbic (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alinco[edit]

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

It does not cite any sources and the info could easily be moved to List of amateur radio transceivers. It also may not meet the notability requirements. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk} 14:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk} 14:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk} 14:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. {{u|wylie39}} {Talk} 14:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, Shoud be a move {{u|wylie39}} {Talk} 14:43, 1 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Barradas[edit]

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:NACTOR or even WP:GNG. Search for sources brings up sparse items in glossies (e.g. here), the IMDB write up, and the personal website. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is an actress, but not a notable one, as far as I can see. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. We need to start having more skepticism towards articles that are one sentence followed by a filmography. If you cannot say more than one sentence in prose on a person you probably should not create an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject has appeared in hundreds and hundreds of episodes of long-running TV series, some of which appear sufficiently notable for the purposes of WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE yields a huge number of "google news" hits—but I can't read any of them. I would expect that WP:GNG is probably made out, but I really think input from someone who can speak the language is needed here. This page definitely warrants close consideration given the subject's extensive filmography. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catarina Rebelo[edit]

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

Non-Wikinotable actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR or even WP:GNG. Only mentions one can find are a few listings, and the IMDB write up. A Caras feature about known telenovelas does not mention her. -The Gnome (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject has worked prolifically in several TV series. Someone who speaks Portuguese is needed to check the online sources, however. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:10, 1 May 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. (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Hong[edit]

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

No reliable, independent sources about Tea Hong. The sources are either from the owner of the company or directly from the company, or are about Leo Kwan but not about Tea Hong. Searching for results gives nothing from Google News and very little from Google in general (searching for "tea hong" gives results were the words "tea" and "Hong Kong" follow each other, but nothing usable for this specific tea trader). Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please inspect the newly added reference for the entity Tea Hong. One is from the STIR Magazine, a trade magazine for tea and coffee professions. The article was written by Jane Pettigrew, one of the most prolific tea writers and educators. The other is from TeaChat, one of the oldest chat rooms on tea and operated by Adagio Teas. I hope these references can satisfy Wikipedia's guideline for reliable reference sources. If these are not enough, we shall seek more for the purpose. We just do not wish to overwhelm the reference list, hoping to make the entry as concise as possible. Thank you for your attention. TheFarmer (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One is a forum: comments by random people on fora, no matter how old or well established, are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia. The other is a comment by Leo Kwan, not a source paying attention to Tea Hong. What we need are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to Tea Hong, not just mentioning it. Fram (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheFarmer (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC) While I can agree that in a public chat room, comments by random people do not carry significant weight, there is a strong argument in Ms Pettigrew's article where she formulated most of the content around the interview with Leo. In fact, his name is mentioned a few times more than any other interviewees. That illustrates the heavy reliance of Ms Pettigrew on Leo Kwan, whose capacity is a representative of Tea Hong in the article. Nevertheless, I have added another piece of writing totally on Tea Hong alone in the reference. It is by a tea reviewer who has written quite a number of our products but not commissioned or sponsored by us. He writes about many other teas as well, but has dedicated full piece of writing only to a few notable teashops. Hope that satisfies your requirements. TheFarmer (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Since my previous edition to the article and addition on this comments have not been addressed for a few days, I guess it is time for you to consider removing the nomination for deletion.[reply]

I actually didn't reply because I hoped other people would get involved here, not because the sources you added were sufficient. The first one[6] is a wordpress page, basically a blog anyone can create, and which seems to be a very obscure one at that[7][8]. As for the Pettigrew article[9], it uses Kwan as an expert, yes, but it has no information on Tea Hong (just mentions it), which is the topic up for deletion. So no, I see no reason to remove this deletion nomination at all. Fram (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheFarmer (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Thank you for relisting for discussion. Everyone seriously in tea are very busy this time of the year. Will come back to this in a couple of weeks.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. --17jiangz1 (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covid Act Now[edit]

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

Software modeling for Covid-19. It is admirable, but not notable enough for an article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done some research, and the Model seems to be of interest in the academic community, and has received some significant coverage in the academia. The model received in-depth evaluation and scientific analysis in an article in the Verge, which is generally considered a reliable source in the fields of technology and science. Scholars have also cited data extracted from Covid Act Now for scientific analysis in published journal articles: 1 2. Passes WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. --Dps04 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dps04, it actually fails WP:WEBCRIT. Merely giving stats from a software is trivial mention. There are no indepth mentions. A cursory article is the most there is on the topic itself. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MistyGraceWhite: In addition to giving stats, there was an entire paragraph describing the COVID Act Now website in the research article I cited above (p.6). Similarly, there was an entire section in the Verge article describing and evaluating the model. Also check these sources where the model is studied in depth: another research article, reporting from USA today, etc. Looks much more than a trivial mention to me. --Dps04 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Many media outlets have reported regarding the software model and many organizations use it for decision making. --Netha (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no sense in dedicating a page for every web initiative just because it concerns an ongoing pandemic. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lack of WP:BEFORE. Sources shown by Dps prove this an easy pass. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the reasons given above, it has been the subject of political controversy, as shown by the mention in the Federalist article cited in the article. The NPOV perspective that Wikipedia can bring to such a political topic of great practical import, can be very valuable. -greenrd (talk) 17:32, 8 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Levitan[edit]

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

non notable doctor. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a failure of our not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. A Google Scholar search shows that at least eight of his papers (six first author publications) are cited over 100 times. I've expanded the article a bit, but the career section could be expanded to include his research experience. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPROF from highly cited papers. Several items of coverage in the NYTimes and other news sources surrounding coronavirus probably isn't quite enough on its own, but helps support. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ACADEMIC fails. 1) he is not a faculty member; 2) he has NOT received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level; 3) his academic work has NO made a significant impact; 4) he is NOT a relevant author (no textbooks), he co-authored only a few peer-reviewed articles (in medicine this is not a "large quantity of academic work". [Notability Doctors] fails too.Ms4263nyu (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record shows him to be a leading expert on emergency airway management, long before the coronavirus made this specialization extremely relevant. I think he passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein can you define 'leading' expert? After 30 years of career, he is resident at the "Littleton Regional Healthcare" Hospital and adjunct at Dartmouth. He doesn't have a Ph.D., his research is merely anecdotal. It would be interesting to discover why he had lo quit his position at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Ms4263nyu (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what his position or credentials are. It's the works that matter. And when I search Google Scholar for emergency airway management, his is one of the first names that comes up. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein Actually, position and credentials are criteria used to establish notability for academics WP:ACADEMIC. About google scholar, it is not reliable as the results follow your previous searches. If I search "emergency airway management" he is only mentioned once as a second coauthor. Try [PubMed] and use "best match" option, no results. I also checked and I don't find his name in any medial textbook, quite interesting for someone, who, in a wikipedia article is described as a "teaching guru" WP:PEACOCK. So can you explain me how do you define him as a "leading expert"?Ms4263nyu (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per WP:NPROF "... academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements." (emphasis original) Wrt your concern about reliability of GS, GS now also lists Web of Science citations (at least from a university ip). The WoS citations also look solid. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe But he is an academic, he is a clinical professor. He has publications too. Is he notable? I expressed my doubt by reading the AfD. He is defined as a " pioneering figure" and a "teaching guru" [!!!]. looking at his CV he does not seem a "leading expert" : 1) is he regarded as an important figure by those in the same field? 2) did he receive a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them? In my opinion no. Last but not least, we are academics, we know that if you are resident at HUP and you have a professorship at UPEN you do not move to Littleton Regional Hospital and teach as adjunct because you have solid "WoS citations".Ms4263nyu (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I found intriguing the WP:PUFFERY language and lack of WP:NPOV in the article (eg " pioneering figure" and a "teaching guru"). So I double checked any possible cases of COI or deceptive advertising. Interestingly, Richard M. Levitan is president of Airway Cam Technologies, Inc., the same company which has filled his own patent registrations and which he runs as a president. Ms4263nyu (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is still going on, I want to expand on the case I made for his notability above. In addition to the strong WP:NPROF C1 case, his airway education materials appear to be widely used, giving a likely pass of WP:NPROF C4. (Ms4263nyu may not have found the mention in medical books, since references are often to his company Airway Cam or to Rich Levitan.) I've also added several reviews of his two books to the article, which I believe is a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. I agree that the article has some puffery (which the long-standing editor who created seems to have taken from the news coverage), but AfD is not cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe: Well done, excellent editing.Ms4263nyu (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 5 May 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 HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337). You can merge anything from history not already covered. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Ionian Sea helicopter crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable military aviation accident. Military aviation accidents are quite common and unless somebody notable is on board, they are rarely notable. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, maybe merge- mainly due to the fact the accident has grounded all helicopters of the type involved until a fleetwide problem can be ruled out. However, WP:TOOSOON may apply in that regard. The majority of the victims were also officers, which could impart notability if they were of high enough rank. If none of these become factors of notability (or are already factors), I'd prefer we merge it with the main article on the type of helicopter involved. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now - I'm inclined to say keep at the moment. Looking at the article for the type of helicopter involved, it looks like this may be the first crash in its history. Also, there's the reasons Kirbanzo pointed out. Love of Corey (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's worth noting that the helicopter is only in service with the canadian armed forces. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable here unless a fleetwide problem is shown. Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Military crash with no notable consequences.--Petebutt (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337), the Royal Canadian Navy ship that the helicopter was based off of. the crash and the ships operational history are linked Epluribusunumyall (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Opinion - Until the 5 people that are missing are found or declared dead, it is a Strong keep for me, but once they are declared dead or found, then I vote Merge into HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337). The crash is notable to have mentioned somewhere. Currently as there are active search parties for the missing, it is notable, but once the searching stops, then it still deserves a mention, but not an article. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the five are now officially presumed dead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge The details of this article should be filed under either HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337) or Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone. While the event is tragic, military equipment failures are one of the more common causes of death and not unique or notable enough for an independent article. The only way would be if there would be enough third party information to note its uniqueness, ie. large loss of life, crash on civilian areas, notable political event between two nations causing loss of aircraft and life, etc. Krazytea(talk) 21:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. As the article is already created, keep until the consequences and impact on the CH-148 fleet as a whole is known. At that point a better determination will be able to be made as to notability to remain stand-alone or where to merge. Turgan ^Talk 22:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337), where it is already mentioned.Djflem (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be considered a significant accident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337) article, where a section has already been started. While the accident is certainly tragic, WP:NOTNEWS applies...PK T(alk) 14:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super T[edit]

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

Non-notable character in some sort of YouTube or Internet series which probably isn't itself notable. Sourcing is vague mentions on Fandom-level sites, nothing substantial or reliable, can't find anything better anywhere. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be a good faith edit, but clearly does not meet notability- probably a well meaning wikizen someone carrying over fandom edits --Willthewanderer (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, possibly suitable for Wikia/Fandom. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably fails on notability grounds, but also provides no context - as in, having read the article, I've no idea who or what 'Super T' is. Even if notability can be established, I think this article should be userfied or thoroughly rewritten by someone in the know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Like DoubleGrazing, I have no idea who this character is. However it's clear enough that the article badly fails WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking in context. What is Lost in the Road? It doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. As such, I can't see that a character from it can be sufficiently notable to have a WP article. — Smjg (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:N. Kraose (talk) 09:56, 6 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanil Somaiya[edit]

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

The only coverage I found about the subject relates to his corrupt activity, which was mentioned in several sources. The mentions, however, are trivial, no substantial coverage found. The subject fall under WP:1E , fails WP:GNG. The sources I have mentioned are here, here, here, here, here Less Unless (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A Google search of him does not show him being discussed in reliable sources. I was only able find a single mention of him here and here. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OluMighty[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable independent sources. A draft article currently exist for this article. The page creator asked me to move the draft to mainspace but I told him the subject wasn't notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could go to speedy I think. Fails GNG and MUSICBIO as nom pointed out. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A before shows subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable reliable sources independent of them. Hence, per WP:GNG they fall short & per WP:MUSICBIO they also fall short. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 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 Speedily deleted under G11. There is literally not a single substantive edit in the history that isn't a promotional edit from this organisation's PR department. ‑ Iridescent 21:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Quality Day[edit]

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

Non notable event. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of independent coverage, but lots of hits for promotional material or paid coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have independent coverage or meet notability requirements --Willthewanderer (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Relevant information but weak notability. Lordofthesky (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Arts Conference[edit]

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

Non notable organisation. Poorly sourced for many years, with WP:BEFORE showing no substantial coverage Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is modest local coverage of the regional competition with nothing to establish general or specific notability. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a real event which gets some specialty coverage from the competitors' local media, but it has not been noticed in any significant way by prominent media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NM & WP:Artist since there is only local coverage not sufficient, reliable and verifiable enough to meet WP:GNG Yourmasterishere (talk) 14:14, 5 May 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 Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bulette[edit]

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

Non-notable creature that fails WP:GNG. Previous deletion discussions did not advance reliable sources, instead arguing WP:ITSNOTABLE while solely citing primary sources and lacking any independent sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of game books, I'm only really finding sources in the same couple of books that always get brought up in these discussions, "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" and the "Art and Arcana" book. The former is just a straight description of the monster's appearance and behavior in the game with no kind of out-of-game discussion. And the latter, in addition to the contested state of its independence as a source (it is an officially licensed D&D product), consists of extremely minimal coverage - literally two sentences and a picture. Outside of those books, there's a few brief mentions in some articles, which are all basically just stating the same couple of sentences of the creature being based on a plastic model, and that is it. There is is not enough coverage in reliable, secondary sources that would support an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is treated in secondary sources:

The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Aside from the descriptions as stated by Rorshacma it analyzes the in-game use and provides a very short reception, which I have added to the article.
Art and Arcana, again as described by Rorshacma, focuses on the artistic rendering
The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters: Very short entry, but gives the creative origin, which appears in more detail in the EN World column.
Collaborative Worldbuilding for Writers and Gamers has a more extensive review with emphasis about how the bulette was presented early in the game.

Then there's a number of internet articles, presumably of varying importance, and appearances in other media:

Critical Hits Studios uses this: [10], [11]
Internet publisher Bell of Lost Souls has a review
Appearane in the video game is provided by Gamespot already in the article, there's non-D&D role-playing games, and the origami version was already suitably defended in the last nomination.

I think that in total meets WP:N. If this is not judged sufficient in the end, I obviously prefer a merge to deletion. Daranios (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ and Daranios. Doesn't need a standalone article. But should not be outright deleted per WP:PRESERVE, and because the ensuing redirect is a solid search term, and redirects are cheap. oknazevad (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, extensive publication history means it probably deserves a mention there, even though it does not deserve a standalone article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the topic has plenty of coverage in reliable secondary sources noted above. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:33, 7 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raflet Stamp Club[edit]

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

Non notable organisation. WP:BEFORE shows no coverage beyond primary sources or WP:ROUTINE Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable organisation. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew I’m afraid to say that these sort of !votes are not terribly helpful. At the moment there are no reliable sources in the article, which breaks a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. If you believe that the organisation is notable, please provide sources that demonstrate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did a BEFORE search, and I found the clubs Facebook profile, website, and profiles for stamps they attempted to sell on multiple websites where such things are done. They appear to have passing mentions in the references section of a few books, and that's it as far as secondary sources go. Therefore, this organisation fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete: as not much found about them, though this [12] is one, of a couple of sources, noting their silver jubilee in 1983, so they have been around for quite some time. A few other minor mentions but the article only uses self-references. ww2censor (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why generic shared-interest association is notable. Reywas92^Talk 05:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Stamp Collectors Club[edit]

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

Non notable organisation. No evidence of any reliable secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It exist, but there's no indication of notability. The article has no independent references and my own search didn't turn up significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. I found it in lists and some passing mentions, but no significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while there are still many regional and local stamp clubs, few are notable enough to have sufficient sources to justify having their own article. Even some in are hardly notable for the same reasons that they rely on self sources and nothing significant is written about them. The international ones are more likely to have sources. ww2censor (talk) 13:18, 2 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oladele Olasoji Ajilesoro[edit]

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

As explained at the bottom of this BBC article, chieftancies are given out on a discretionary basis. I've seen nothing to indicate that this particular honorary chief is a notable individual. The editor of the article has moved this from draftspace, circumventing AfC where it has been repeatedly declined and speedily deleted. They have not engaged with any of the messages on their talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. He isn't discussed in any of the article's sources. A Google search of him doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article cannot pass AfC it should not exist. I still think we need to require all articles to go through AfC, although considering most of our worst sourced articles were created in 2005-2008 the AfC requirement will not fix that huge glut.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 8 May 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 (WP:NPASR) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arms Race (band)[edit]

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

I can see very little coverage of substance in the provided sources; it's almost entirely stage lists and short mentions, and even the promisingly titled "ARMS RACE – britische Hardcore-Punk-Band löst sich auf" is just three sentences [13]. This may be the best of the bunch, and it's one paragraph. I don't think there's enough material here to source a valid article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, It's a minimal page but meets WP:MUSIC criteria 1 because the band has coverage from Bandcamp Daily, Now and Stereogum. 4 because Vice covered their US co-headline tour with Violent Reaction and Unite Asia covered their Japan headline tour. And 7 because [14] considered them "leaders" of the NWOBHC, and [15] says they "solidified" that style. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are as trivial as you can get - you can't even call the first two "coverage", they are the briefest of mentions. But I suspect this will be entirely obvious to anyone who has a look at these sources, so no further comments from me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, by calling the first two sources trivial: the first source I mentioned was Bandcamp Daily which has their album art as its cover, refers to them as "generating international attention" and as defining the sound of a new wave of the genre. That doesn't seem like trivial coverage in the slighltest. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. The sources listed above are extremely poor: one's a Japanese tour announcement, another's a tour announcement for another band, one's a festival announcement mentioning them a single time, and the last one (possibly the best source) is merely a couple of mentions in the context of hardcore bands in general. It probably wouldn't even have been mentioned were it not for the fact that several of its band members were actually on Violent Reaction, and the article's author seems excited about that. I'm not seeing the SIGCOV needed to substantiate an article on this band. Nor does it appear to fulfill any MUSIC criteria with these very poor sources. PK650 (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 10:09, 1 May 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. As noted, the only two "keep" opinions are by new accounts. Sandstein 11:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Action Zealandia[edit]

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

Notability issues. This is a small white nationalist group who, given how positive this article is, have likely written this article themselves to promote the organisation. This article is using Action Zealandia's website for the majority of references. Nexus000 (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Action Zealandia[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Wikipedia should not be promoting Nazi hate groups. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i got rid of the unambiguous advertising or promotion. WoodLay (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christchurch mosque shootings. Group does not appear to be notable, all reliable sources that I can find just mention it in connection with the shootings. Schazjmd (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Of the five sources given, two are their own website, one is about a New Zealand MP. Putting posters over a sign doesn't warrant a page creation. Edigodiuss (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable, they have independent sources. i can't say the same thing about pages like the New Communist Party of Aotearoa which has had no media media coverage and yet they still have their page up. WoodLay (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:WoodLay, you may only vote once. If you have more to add, use Comment at the start. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is a deletion policy (I forget which) that says we can remove a page even if it is not the worst one on Wikipedia. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment Fails WP:ILLCON. "It is possible that an organization that is not itself generally notable will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct shall not be used to establish an organization's notability per this guideline." I'd argue that the event in question that this group claimed to commit isn't even significant enough in and of itself, but even if it was that wouldn't warrant a page. Edigodiuss (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ILLCON as above, I would also add WP:TOOSOON. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought the article was fairly neutral, and not promotional to begin with. It's not promotion to state its actions, or stating its ideology from the source, if done so from a neutral standpoint. The organization is as notable if not more so, than the now defunct Right Wing Resistance or recently created New Communist Party of Aotearoa. Redmin (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existence or nonexistence of other articles on Wikipedia cannot be used as the raison d'être of an article. If you believe that those two other articles don't meet WP:GNG you can nominate them for deletion. Also, Redmin might be a WP:SOCK, account was created today and they only have 4 edits, all of which are related to Action Zealandia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redmin) Edigodiuss (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am merely an interested party, as I have looked up the group, and noticed the changes made in the Wikipedia entry last i saw it. I wish to point out that almost all news articles cited coverage of it "beyond a mere trivial mention", as they pertain to the group and its activity, including the titles of the articles themselves being dedicated to it. Hardly a passing mention.Redmin (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not say that the mention of AZ was trivial in any of these articles, I said that the actions themselves were trivial. Seeing as you're "an interested party", you have not adressed the main point that has been mentioned multiple times, that this articles falls under WP:ILLCON, as the organization is not notable outside of two minor criminal acts. The only reason this might be kept would be because the victim of one of the crimes is an important figure (under WP:CRIME), but even then that mostly pertains to major crimes committed against notable figures by people who weren't notable. As the crime was very minor (if it can even be called that, it was minor vandalism), I believe it would fall well outside of that. Edigodiuss (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, small acts of vandalism don't make this group notable, and it appears they've only been around for less than a year.-gadfium 06:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Comment on the two people who voted Keep. WoodLay created the original article. Redmin's account was created today and their only activity has been editing the page and insisting to keep the page up. Both are highly likely to be Action Zealandia members with a vested interest to keep the page up. Nexus000 (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

commentAs per WP:N I am inclined to say that this is a marginal call. There is clearly independent coverage- but whether the group or individual members are the focus is debatable. There have been more than one incident- but none are notable in their own right. WP relating to criminal figures clearly applies, but as per the victims are notable. I would contend that there is a strong possibility this page could be notable and after these concerns have been raised there should be a period provided for editors to establish definite notability. Willthewanderer (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Temple of Tampa[edit]

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

May fail WP:GNG. This seems like a regular Hindu temple. Computer165 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability criteria. No news coverage also, and relies on its own website. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill Hindu temple. A Google search only turns up event listings like this and this – no coverage of the temple itself. The temple was founded in 2014, so there's no significant history that might confer notability. The article was likely created by a COI editor, and there have been no substantive changes to the article since its creation. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cordele Intermodal Services[edit]

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

Article has only had two sources on in it and a notability banner since 2014. Nothing comes up in a BEFORE except for trivial coverage of them maybe being involved in the building of a port. Which is already cited in the article. Also, interestingly the only two citations are written by the same person, who also happens to be the creator and main editor of the article and is clearly a COI paid editor. Adamant1 (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything that would signal WP:SIGCOV that is required by WP:NCORP Sulfurboy (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2SP Brewing Company[edit]

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

Lacks adequate sourcing due to only having trivial coverage in local newspapers, like doing delivery while Chronovirus is happening, etc etc. So, fails multiple in-depth coverage in reliable sources or non-trivial topics per NCORP. Topic is also probably to local to appeal to a general audience. Adamant1 (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not finding any sources that would indicate notability. Caro7200 (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ManipalCigna Health Insurance[edit]

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

Promotion of a company. Major of the references do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. The vast majority fail WP:ORGIND as they rely on information provided by connected parties or press releases or announcement of a company. Others are only the mentions-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. And Creator is blocked in Sock Puppet investigation Jai49 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shanze1 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 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. Kept and applicable tags have been added to the page. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oium[edit]

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

The article is about a single word for Scythia in a 6th century book, which gave a Gothic origin myth. Nothing in the article is not better handled in other articles already, though can not specify one single article as being the most close (which means I can't think of a meaningful "merge to" option). The original article's creator has not edited since 2005. A period of efforts by good faith editors who raised concerns but found no new common vision going forward can be seen on the talk page. For a long time most edits have been minor or technical. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic has received substantial coverage in the works of Dennis Howard Green, Omeljan Pritsak and others, and is the subject of a standalone article in the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. I believe the topic is notable. There is certainly room for improvement of this article, but that does not justify deletion, regardless of how long its been since "the original article's creator" has edited. Even if this topic is found non-notable, it should certainly exist as a redirect. Goths#Movement towards the Black Sea is a suitable destination for redirection. This way we may also be able to preserve the edit history. However, there is general consensus at Talk:Goths that that article should not go into deep details on Gothic origins. In view of that consensus and other reasons described above, i think this article should be kept. Krakkos (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well-spotted concerning the RGA article which is here but it is not much like our article. Also worth considering simple conversion to a redirect, which could indeed eventually redirect to a section of Goths, Getica, or a new article about Origin stories of the Goths (as proposed recently by GPinkerton). Although again the current article is not much use for building that either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the subject is obviously notable. Andrew Lancaster is on a blatantly POV mission here, making endless attempts to rewrite the entire history of all Germanic peoples, or even remove every mention of the word "Germanic", as can be seen from his edits on a large number of articles, using every trick in the book and then some, including posting impenetrable walls of text on all talk pages in order rto wear down all opposition. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim considerably. Most of the material appears to be irrelevant, but the RGA article provides a workable basis for an article. Srnec (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is also the direction I am thinking now. I was worried that everything in this article is like an unmaintained B version of something in another article. The RGA shows a different possibility, but it requires a lot of trimming here, and I hope that is really possible in practice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily prune -- There is certainly something here that ought to be kept, but it feels to me as if there is too much material here that is actually the history of Dacia, of the Goths, and of other groups. What is needed here is an article focusing on the word and historians' interpretation of its significance. We are dealing here with a subject on the fringes of history where there are few documents and multiple interpretations of them, many of which are potentially valid, but most will involve speculative syntheses from those documents. There may be a need for other articles to be created covering some aspects of the content with cross-references from this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove everything that is not covered by secondary RS directly in relation to "Oium". The current article relies to heavily on the primary source Jordanes, which violates the encyclopedic policies of WP. We're not writing excerpts and critical commentaries of historical primary sources here, that's the job our scholarly secondary/tertiary RS (e.g. the RGA). –Austronesier (talk) 14:53, 4 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still Hacking Anyway[edit]

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

This is one of the events of a Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention. I don't find that any of the specific meeting particular gathering in specific have adequate notability to warrant a stand alone article per WP:LASTING and it should be merged and redirected, as I have done so once already but it is being challenged Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extend: It started out with multiple pages, with a stand-alone article for each specific event. I moved the first of the event to Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention as the convention probably meets the WP:GNG. However, individual events of this convention don't meet the criteria for WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:ROUTINE. The sources available only get into the event in depth in the relatively narrow time span leading up to August 2017 wgenb the event occurred, or shortly after it. The Oregon State Fair as a recurring fair is notable. One might find brief information about it some time before each year's fair, extended coverage about the fair just days leading up to the fair, then a follow up article about it within the few weeks following the fair. So, lacking something extraordinary and enduring effects, 2017 Oregon State Fair would not merit an article and example coverage like I just listed out wouldn't count as notability setting sources. If something did happen at the fair; and that particular fair receives extensive ongoing coverage about it, it would justify its own page. So, for the 2017 SHA, merging into Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention would be the most appropriate; however lacking a merge target, the other alternative in my opinion would be deletion, because the specific event fails to establish the persistent coverage criteria. Graywalls (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nominator. However, I think such merger should be properly discussed first on the respective article talk page (brief discussion there shows this may affect more articles). Following right formal procedure is important to prevent later disputes and AfD - in my POV - is not the right one in this case. Pavlor (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It should be noted that the "Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention" article was created by the nominator, it did not existed before. These individual camps had a lasting impact on the creation of hackerspaces in The Netherlands, see here. It should also be considered that every event in this series has their own article in the language of origin, Dutch. Apart from all this, the article meets WP:GNG. I agree with the evaluation of @Pavlor: that it should be discussed on the talk page first, and thus this discussion should be closed. Dwaro (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An event is held every four years as Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention. I moved the very first gathering into Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention. Each of the individual events so far don't show enough notability to warrant its own page, because each of the event haven't demonstrated notability on their own to have their own separate pages and their coverage is mostly at the the time of the event, thus not having enough notability per WP:LASTING. Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Significant series of events that I as an administrator of English Wikipedia have attended on multiple occasions, despite coming from the other side of the world. In addition, many significant hackers, whistleblowers, security professionals and law enforcement have attended the events, which are unquestionably culturally significant and always attract global participation. prat (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment by "series of event" do you mean the Quadrennial Dutch hacker convention? Per the wikipedia policies I cited earlier, the sources for just the event "Still Hacking Anyways" doesn't satisfy enduring coverage requirements. I am saying this should be merged, but if the merge is not agreeable, the article lacks WP:NEVENT to remain as is as as stand alone pageGraywalls (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Any sources to support notability of the article subject? Notability for Wikipedia is something other than "notability" in common parlance (I´m sure an administrator of English Wikipedia is aware of that). Requirements for keeping an article are much higher today than in 2003. Pavlor (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment in response to above: Apparently is the largest ever such event in the series. There is no reason to doubt its significance. Past events received similar notability skepticism and deletion threats on Wikipedia, always eventually overturned. There is no reason to suggest this one will be any less significant, so let's spare the drama and just leave it here to be extended. prat (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- reply but appeal to personal experience is not evidence of notability. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, this event is expected to have coverage beyond the typical coverage events receive shortly before and after it happens. All the sources are between June and August, 2017. It also had contents I've had to remove, because it was based on reader comments of Tweaker.nl articles which is always disallowed by WP:UGC with rare exception such as when such comment has been discussed by reliable source. "apparently is the largest event in the series" doesn't justify keeping of its own page without reliable sources that would establish notability. Which ones have gone through formal deletion, but undeleted through the deletion review? I'm not saying to downright delete it. I'm saying merge it, but the merger is getting protested by the article's creator. Graywalls (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep secondary sources can be found at the Dutch wikipedia page. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the Dutch page. The sources there are all from August 2-8, 2017, thus making no impact at all whatsoever on establishing evidence of WP:PERSISTENCE Graywalls (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep - The page says frequency: quadrennial; therefore, I think that a label of WP:LASTING is flat-out wrong here. This isn't a single event that creates a lasting cultural impression/significance. This is essentially a convention that happens every four years, not an event that caused a lasting effect (which imo should be seen in the secondary sources). Other than that, I think there is a weak showing of WP:GNG through the Dutch sources: omroep, tweakers1, tweakers2. Based on those (thin) sources, I reluctantly give a soft keep. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:14, 10 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modey Hicks[edit]

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

A mayor of a town with the population of 10K. Only local coverage. Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He's actually in the national news because of his firing of his city manager over his reopening of a golf course.[16] Probably not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smalltown mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist — making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires the ability to write a substantive article, referenced to a significant volume of reliable source coverage that makes him a lot more than just a temporarily newsy WP:BLP1E. But this article only just barely goes any further than stating that he exists while not even approaching the suburbs of the amount of substance it would take to make his existence as a mayor notable enough for Wikipedia, and just cites his and the city's own self-published web presence rather than any evidence of notability-supporting media coverage — and no, getting one brief blip of nationalized coverage for a single incident is not enough coverage to get him permanently over the bar. If he has no other nationalized media coverage outside that blip, then he's just a BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Hicks is the mayor of a small town with a population of 9K. Pure local politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is a mayor of a place with 9,000 people. Even if her city had ten times that population it would not be enough to make her default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 8 May 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 Joe Coulombe. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Colomb[edit]

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

A page without a purpose. There isn't even one Joe Colomb to disambiguate. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Joe Coulombe. Coulombe is not a common name, nor would people necessarily know how to spell it. Colomb is closer to how it's pronounced, and Colomb is a real name as well.—Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Coulombe per {{R from misspelling}}, and probably add a hatnote to the Joe Colombo DAB. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 05:23, 02 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enwiki has nothing about anyone with this name. This title is ambiguous in the real world and a redirect from misspelling is not appropriate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Coulombe. Wareon (talk) 05:24, 4 May 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) 08:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myth-o-Mania[edit]

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

Non-notable book series that fails WP:NBOOK. Mbdfar (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see reviews of other works by the same author, but nothing at all about this series or even individual books in it. Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Striking !vote per sources found below Mccapra (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - I can find a couple of short reviews on two of the individual books ("Hit the Road, Helen" in the Kirkus review, "Have a Hot Time, Hades" in Publisher's Weekely), and a couple of mentions of the series as a whole in some articles discussing books on classical antiquity written for children. But, overall, the coverage does not appear to be substantial enough to sustain an article or pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The couple of individual reviews I found, in addition to the sources described by Cunard below, look to be enough to push this one past the WP:GNG. Revising my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 2 May 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 sources:

Murnaghan, Sheila (Spring 2011). "Classics for Cool Kids: Popular and Unpopular Versions of Antiquity for Children". Classical World. 104 (3): 345–347. JSTOR 41303435. Archived from the original on 2020-05-02. Retrieved 2020-05-02.
Kazmierski, Sharon (Fall 2002). "The Clearing House". The Classical Outlook. 80 (1). American Classical League: 30–31. ISSN 0009-8361. JSTOR 43939630.
Gallo, Don (July 2004). "Bold Books for Innovative Teaching: Summer Reading: 2004". The English Journal. 93 (6): 114–115. JSTOR 4128905.
Murnaghan, Sheila; Roberts, Deborah H. (2017). "Myth Collections for Children". In Zajko, Vanda; Hoyle, Helena (eds.). A Handbook to the Reception of Classical Mythology. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 99. ISBN 978-1-4443-3960-4. Retrieved 2020-05-02.
Kim, Suh Yoon (2018). "Representation of Greek Mythology in History Textbooks of Greek Primary schools". Journal of Literary Education (pdf). 2018 (1). University of Valencia: 157. doi:10.7203/JLE.1.12268. Retrieved 2020-05-02.

Sources with quotes

Murnaghan, Sheila (Spring 2011). "Classics for Cool Kids: Popular and Unpopular Versions of Antiquity for Children". Classical World. 104 (3): 345–347. JSTOR 41303435. Archived from the original on 2020-05-02. Retrieved 2020-05-02.
The article notes:
The new classic status of myth collections, and the impulse to attack them in order to be popular, is well illustrated by the "Myth-O-Mania" books, a series for young readers (the recommended age range is 9-12) by Kate McMullan, published by Hyperion in 2002 and 2003, beginning with the first title, Have a Hot Time , Hades!, going through Phone Home, Persephone!, Keep a Lid on it, Pandora!, Stop That Bull, Theseus!, and others, to the final volume, Go For the Gold, Atalanta!. As these titles show, the tone of the books is jokey, and they derive much of their punch from the juxtaposition of classical figures with aggressively modern idioms and situations. As the titles also show, they are highly formulaic, which may explain why the series was relatively short-lived; nonetheless, their underlying premise is quite interesting. Each book is devoted to parodic debunking of a well-known Greek myth. The narrator is Hades, whose mission is to correct the lies of his little brother Zeus, whom he regularly characterizes as a "a total myth-o-manic," which is "old Greek-speak for 'big fat liar'" (v). Zeus spreads lies mostly for self-aggrandizement. ...
...
Strikingly, Zeus' big fat lies are propagated in the form of a book: The Big Fat Book of Greek Myths. McMullan's appeal to her readers is based on the assumption that they will have already met the myths in their traditional form at an even younger age, in a compendium like that of the D'Aulaires, and that they view that compendium as somewhat tedious and overlong (as opposed to the Myth-O-Mania books, which come in at between 150 and 165 large-print pages) - or, if they do not view it that way, they will get a charge out of being given permission to do so now. McMullan's retold myths are in some ways subversive, as we like to think that popular literature is. August classical figures are put on a par with ordinary modern people through mundane details and deflating puns. For example, Persephone uses a cell phone and checks into the Motel Styx. And the conceit that canonical myths are shaped by Zeus' self-promoting agenda conveys a sophisticated sense of the vagaries of transmission and of the role of the victorious and powerful in determining the success of a given variant.
[a paragraph providing analysis about Zeus' lies in the series]
McMullan's designs on her child readers are confused and contradictory. She wants to hook them with a parodic, subversive, anti-authoritarian stance, but she does not really want to stimulate their imaginations through stories with truly challenging elements. And in the end, she reinforces the canonical myths she makes fun of, since the pleasure to be gained from her books depends on knowing the canonical versions and recognizing how they have been reworked. The Big Fat Book of Greek Myths is ultimately indispensable. McMullan's educational aims are lightly worn, but they surface in the back of the book with a glossary.
Kazmierski, Sharon (Fall 2002). "The Clearing House". The Classical Outlook. 80 (1). American Classical League: 30–31. ISSN 0009-8361. JSTOR 43939630.
The article notes:
Mythomania or Even More for Middle Schoolers

Kate McMullan has a nifty new series out entitled "Myth-O-Mania" that will definitely appeal to the middle school set. Be forewarned that Ms. McMullan is not Hamilton, Bulfinch, or D'Aulaire. The author herself admits that these books "are very silly," but then she also points out that when she taught sixth graders, they loved anything silly. Personally, I think the books are a hoot. The stories are told from the perspective of the long-suffering Hades, older brother of the mythomaniacal liar and cheat, Zeus, also known as the C.E.O. or "Chairgod of Everybody on Olympus." Hades has had it with all the lies told in the Big Fat Book of Mythology and has decided to set the story straight about his egotistical sibling. The first book in the series is Have a Hot Time, Hades and dishes out the dirt about how Zeus really became the Ruler of the Universe. There is a rather tongue-in-cheek chapter about the first Olympic games, in which Artemis, of course, competes in the archery competition, while Demeter has made weeding an official sport. There's plenty of quick moving action, including the climactic "kickstone" event between the Titans and Olympians. We also find out how Hades originally acquired Cerberus. The center of each book includes a perennial middle-school favorite, two trading cards of the gods, complete with stats.
Each book includes a glossary, "King Hades' Quick and Easy Guide to the Myths," with accurate, albeit unorthodox, descriptions and definitions. Your students are bound to remember that Demeter was the goddess of agriculture when described as a "total gardening nut." (You will love the names of Hades' chariot steeds, by the way.) If you are a stickler for absolute accuracy, then this might not be the series for you or your students. However, if you have a good sense of humor and can deal with really bad puns, or if you are trying to figure out how to motivate reluctant readers to enjoy mythology, then you'll want to take a look at these. "Myth-O-Mania" might even inspire your own students to rewrite classical myths from the perspective of different Olympians.
Gallo, Don (July 2004). "Bold Books for Innovative Teaching: Summer Reading: 2004". The English Journal. 93 (6): 114–115. JSTOR 4128905.
The article provides a few sentences of coverage:
On a lighter note, if you teach Greek myths, you have to read at least one of the very short volumes in Kate McMullan's Myth-O-Mania series (New York: Volo). One of the most recent is Keep a Lid on It, Pandora! in which the boastful Hades (whose ego is as big as the world) sets the record straight about Pandora and the box she couldn't resist opening. Much fun.
Murnaghan, Sheila; Roberts, Deborah H. (2017). "Myth Collections for Children". In Zajko, Vanda; Hoyle, Helena (eds.). A Handbook to the Reception of Classical Mythology. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 99. ISBN 978-1-4443-3960-4. Retrieved 2020-05-02.
The book provides a paragraph of coverage:
Kate McMullan's "Myth‐o‐mania" books, which appeared in 2002 and 2003, convert familiar myths into up‐to‐date versions that respond to contemporary concerns: the Minotaur is no monster, but a gentle misfit who practices vegetarianism (McMullan 2003); Persephone uses a cell phone and checks into the Motel Styx, and she was never abducted by Pluto, who only helped her escape her overprotective mother (McMullan 2002). These revisions are presented not as primary narratives, but as corrections of false stories promulgated by a self-regarding Zeus in The Big Fast Book of Greek Myths. By the early twenty-first century, the children's myth collection has become so established a form that it turns to self-parody in order to provide its child audience with a fresh experience of the pleasures of classical mythology.
Kim, Suh Yoon (2018). "Representation of Greek Mythology in History Textbooks of Greek Primary schools". Journal of Literary Education (pdf). 2018 (1). University of Valencia: 157. doi:10.7203/JLE.1.12268. Retrieved 2020-05-02.
The article provides a few sentences of coverage:
Being from a foreign country, I am also interested in comparing the way Greek mythology is taught to children between Greece and other countries. So far, the main difference is that heroes play a key role in Greece. In other countries, series books about Greek mythology mostly deal with gods and goddess, instead of heroes. For example, in America, Kate McMullan’s famous series book Myth-O-Mania (2002) is focused on the conflict between Hades and Zeus. Gods and monsters including Cupid, Medusa, Persephone also come into the spotlight. The stories of Theseus and Hercules are told, but they are not depicted as great heroes. In this retelling, Hades reminds (them) of their…. quest and helps them complete it. In Percy Jackson series (2002~) by Rick Riordan, the main characters are the Olympian gods living in modern world.

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

Cunard (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources that provide substantial coverage of Myth-O-Mania are from two journals: Classical World and American Classical League's The Classical Outlook. Cunard (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Cunard found sources. Dream Focus 19:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per a source review and Cunard's WP:BEFORE source work, meets WP:BOOKCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 8 May 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. – bradv🍁 14:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friends and Heroes[edit]

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

Non-notable TV series. PROD was removed without rationale for notability. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. Even a quick google search is lined with mentions of the subject. Example: [[17]] ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMDb is not considered a reliable source. It’s a freely editable wiki just like Wikipedia, only with even looser standards. Also, most of the Google hits are websites directly connected in one way or another to the show itself. A reliable source must be independent of the original work. Dronebogus (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, IMDB is not a reliable source, the coverage on this I could find was nothing more than promotional fluff pieces from people connected with the makers of this program. Therefore, this fails GNG and WP:NTV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there are some sources available but these may not do much to add notability. Likely to downgrade my vote if other more reliable sources can’t be found.

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/awardwinning.friends.and.heroes.release.next.instalments/18724.htm https://www.awn.com/news/fremantle-acquires-friends-and-heroes https://www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/stories/view?articleid=1145 Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - requires references, but it is popular as Christian children animated series. JohnThorne (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I looked through the sources given above, and the Inspire Magazine article definitely contributes to notability. However, the other two articles found are pretty clearly promotional pieces, so they cannot do so. One more source would would be enough to pass GNG, and while I could find this: [18], it also seems promotional, though it is not as clear-cut as the other sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered on seven pages of "The Bible in Motion". There is some discussion of the director's work at Universal Film Magazine, issue 3 of 2012 It was also reviewed by a homeschooling magazine. Together, that means this article meets GNG. Also .imdb.com has entries for a number of episodes, although I don't think that counts.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are correct that IMDb does not count. The “Bible in Motion” thing also looks rather trivial. I didn’t look at it in depth, but if Universal Film Mag doesn’t specifically cover Friends and Heroes in any real detail it doesn’t count either. Dronebogus (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bible in Motion" source is in depth; I read some of the book earlier around the time I posted. If you search for the topic and book name on google books you can somehow get it to preview the pages instead of blocking them. I linked to the index, though, so I can see how it appears trivial.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no coverage online to support notability, and looked thoroughly. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully passes WP:TVSERIES as it is broadcast on regional and national stations. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 06:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 05:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas[edit]

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

Fails corporation notability criterion WP:NCORP due to lack of depth and breadth of coverage. Appears to be misuse of Wikipedia as some kind of vehicle.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the individual associated with the firm is equally non-notable under WP:NBIO:

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

End nomination ☆ Bri (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 05:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a notable firm. Described here as being the biggest legal firm in India. Google news search of this company does bring up a lot of articles from reliable sources. Spiderone 12:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. To delete articles on the largest law firm (which was formed by a split in an even larger firm) in a country with a population of over a billion and its managing partner would rightly open us up to ridicule. I nearly clicked "publish" with a further comment here but have decided to bite my lip. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the article about the firm: The current article is little more than a corporate listing, providing the company's office locations and advisory board. Coverage can be found of company sector initiatives, though these fall under announcement-driven routine coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. As well as the description of them in the news item mentioned above, they are also described as "the country’s largest law firm" in this November 2019 Reuters news report (the subject of which is followed up in this subsequent report). The firm's origin is described in "The Indian Legal Profession in the Age of Globalization", though that is more about the predecessor firm. I'd prefer to find more evaluative coverage rather than base a keep opinion on scale and routine coverage, but the sum of coverage is probably enough for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 8 May 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. – bradv🍁 14:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasak (TV series)[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources, and virtually no information other than the plot. Does not meet WP:GNG. Previously deleted through PROD only to be recreated. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearely a non-notable TV series. There is no significant voverage or proper references to establish the notability. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 05:31, 1 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Jesus Culture[edit]

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

I did a PROD on this a while back due to lack of notability which was rejected, but the person suggested doing an AfD instead. Most of the sources are trivial album track listings. Except for a single, none in-depth album review on AllMusic. I couldn't find any more reviews in a search either. So, it lacks enough substantial secondary in-depth coverage to meet notability standards. I'd also be fine with merging it to Jesus Culture. Btw, I am aware it has technically "charted," US Christian Albums is a dependent chart. So it does not work for establishing notability. Especially with the lack of multiple sources containing in-depth coverage. Adamant1 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's part of a chronology series and both of the others (2014, 2016) are on Wikipedia. peak chart ranking 15. Chris Quilala and Kim Walker-Smith who both have their own articles, are featured on all the tracks. notable reviewer mark deming comment the most popular and respected Christian music groups of their day. is not just a passing mention - most popular and most respected confer notability.Grmike (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Notability isn't inherited. While the band might be notable and worthy of an in individual article, not everything they do is. Also, I repeat my comment in an another AfD that you should learn the notability guidelines. Instead of just voting keep on almost everything due to personal opinions. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Review at AllMusic (which is present), charting on Billboard on a fringe chart, and I have no idea what a "dependent chart" chart is, and I've been reviewing for a while. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review at cross rhythms and [hallels.com, but it is not reviewed at JesusFreakHideout.com. All of these reviews are sufficient to meet GNG. I did not try CCM or other online magazines, but likely would have found them there as well. I saw @Jax 0677:'s edit summary and saw that the suggestion was that you should have created a redirect. @Kuda188: and @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: as they have both edited the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Walter Görlitz: see WP:CHARTMATH and Christian Albums Chart where it says Christian Albums Chart is "Like the Billboard 200." Which is mentioned as a dependent chart in WP:CHARTMATH. Also, @Jax 0677 gave doing AfD as an option on my talk page. Which you should know, because you replied to it. Thanks for the accusation that I'm lying about it though. Further, I would consider you pinging multiple users (who you know will probably vote keep) just because they have edited and created the article, a form of AfD shilling and vote cheating. Neither of which are acceptable last time I checked. Especially when it comes to pinging people who have just edited an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You're confused about dependent charts. There are no charts that feed into Christian Albums Chart. It's based on sales alone. Sorry. Too late to revoke and I doubt they'll !vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - How exactly am I confused about it? I'd like to know so I don't make the same mistake in the future. Also, why does the article say they are "Like the Billboard 200" then? I'm just going off what the article says. It can be based on sales and still be dependent anyway. The Billboard Hot 100 is. So, that has nothing to do with it. You never know, they might vote. Are you saying vote shilling is OK as long as it doesn't work out though? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The example there is a single chart that is derived by weighting airplay and two different sales channels. If you were to report Hot 100 as well as any category of Hot 100 Airplay, Hot 100 Sales and Hot 100 Streaming Songs you would have redundancy. US Christian Albums is like the 200 in that they are both based solely on sales. No airplay charts are involved. Neither is a derivative of the other. 200 is overall sales so it's conceivable to have a Mainstream Rock, R&B, Classical, Jazz, Christian, Country, and Dance album all on the 200, while it would be unlikely to have the same album on all of those charts. Those charts are all based on sales with the 200 being the most important in the US. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re "No airplay charts are involved." "Like the Billboard 200, the data is compiled by Nielsen Soundscan based on each album's weekly physical and digital sales, as well as on-demand streaming" How is on-demand streaming not comparable to airplay? It's exactly the same thing. I.E. people listing to it without directly purchasing it. In other words, not sales, but as well as sales etc. Therefore, weighing different channels. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        BTW, do you happen to have an opinion of where the cut off for notability when it comes charting is? I'd imagine something like charting 400th on a weekly sub, second or third tier chart probably wouldn't be all that notable on it's own. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The two charts are calculated the same way. That's all. Albums that chart high on one of the genre-specific charts will also chart on the 200. I don't have an opinion on chart importance. Some in the albums project argue that charting anywhere on any chart makes it notable. I think it has to be high on a fringe chart or top 100 of the 200, but it's not up to me. I don't know of any chart that goes to 400. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Jesus Culture. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charted on a reasonbly well-known chart, the AllMusic review is one source, and the reviews found by Walter Gorlitz push it over GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 22:06, 1 May 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) 06:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork Entertainment[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG. PRODded twice. Initial revision indicates the creator has a clear COI. – Teratix ₵ 03:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 03:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 03:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 03:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, and difficult to locate. also shares the same name with an up and coming gaming company.Grmike (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Delete - I struggled to find independent, reliable sources on the topic. This makes it difficult to see how the article passes WP:GNG, or is even verifiable. I would note I can't even access the supposed website of Clockwork Entertainment, and the other sources I found on the topic were self-published ones, including those published in Twitter and Youtube. --Dps04 (talk) 06:47, 1 May 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) 08:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Jay Hooker[edit]

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

May not pass wp:POLITICIAN, as this subject never held elected office. Running unsuccessfully for office is not a yardstick for notability. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Through he may not pass the strict requirements under WP:POLITICIAN, WP:Politician provides that politicians may nevertheless be notable if they pass WP:GNG. Here we have a figure who, despite never having held any elected office, was known for his legal-political activities as a perennial candidate and litigant. He is also covered in multiple reliable sources, including a New York Times article on his life and legal/political career, another article detailing his influence, to name a few. Clearly passes WP:GNG --Dps04 (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not written in an encyclopedic style, but passes GNG. Caro7200 (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - John Jay Hooker is notable. The page needs improvement not deletion. Mattise135 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the same reasons posted here by three prior editors. By the OP's criteria, take a look at Rocky De La Fuente (which page is also a keeper). Other than obvious fluff or violation of other policies, it's nearly always better to retain; there needs to be a good reason to delete. What's garbage to one reader can be important to another. Also, this is not a vanity article by a single editor; a number of different editors have contributed to it, which itself is an important consideration. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best in Spain[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Certification claim is backed by a link to a file sharing service; a suspected unreliable website for sources. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Another common target of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the book cited for the certification has been used on numerous articles to source Spanish chart positions and certifications before 2005, which is the earliest the Spanish Promusica chart archive goes back to. However, it's never been determined if this book is a reliable source or if its contents are official, i.e. whether there were official Spanish charts before 2005. Richard3120 (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Redirect to Boney M. discography) - In the past few months there have been AfD's for a whole bunch of cheap Boney M compilation albums. This group seems to be mixed up in shifty contracts that enable budget labels to release repetitive compilations decades after they stopped recording. This album is like all the others: quickly released then forgotten with no professional reviews or other significant media coverage. Concerning the claim of gold certification in Spain, even if that can be confirmed it doesn't help much, because there is still almost nothing to be said about the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:19, 1 May 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) 06:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Kohl[edit]

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

Non-notable failed candidate, lobbyist and relative of notable politician Orange Mike | Talk 02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, if he wins an election, he'll be notable enough for an article. Until then, this article reads like a puff piece. -Sebanderson (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, has not accomplished enough on his own. Caro7200 (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fully agree its WP:TOOSOON. Kohl is still a candidate, if he gets elected to the position, then an article can be created. Just because he comes from a notable family, does not warrant an article for him. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 23:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royal broil 02:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and since every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage in the local media, the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from having to fulfill NPOL. Rather, he needs to either (a) show that he was already notable enough for an article for other reasons independently of the candidacy, such that he would already have qualified for an article anyway on those other grounds, or (b) show that his candidacy received such an unusual volume of nationalized or internationalized attention that he would have a credible claim to his candidacy being much more special than everybody else's candidacies, but neither of those are on offer here.
Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he runs again and wins, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aatka Feroz[edit]

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

Beauty pageant winner, no other claim to notability, fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there are other well reliable references like the Urdu one from Express.com.pk, it may pass WP:GNG, but it is not currently in form of being kept. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 23:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried to find Urdu sources, nothing besides one from Express. The article has not capability of standing as alone article, suggesting possible Merge to Miss Pakistan World - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 23:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It could even be argued that 'Miss Canada Pakistan' doesn't meet WP:GNG, and in any case, Aatka Feroz certainly doesn't. Sebanderson (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a winner of a pageant that does not confer notability. Salut65 (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment - just curious - is there a new directive for removing more articles than usual ? many of these them, if removed, ultimately mean the removal of entire series, sections, categories, etc. that have been around for more than a decade. I understand the guidelines have always been the same but in the past there has been a thin line that allowed them to stay that isn't regarded anymore.Grmike (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
comment - This particular article does not have strong sources so I have given it a delete, but there is one I think should be kept - Shanzay hayat, however the rest can be deleted. But one author has nominated all beauty queens of Pakistani decent and Indonesian decent. These were the very few Muslim beauty queens who did make their mark for that one year.Salut65 (talk) 09:23, 6 May 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H. M. Khoja[edit]

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

Promotional, schoolteachers are not notable. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since there are no sources this person clearly fails GNG and ANYBIO. There are a couple of external links in the article, but they are both 404’s. A search shows that he apparently had a high school named after him, but I could find no coverage of him. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear WP:SIGNIF claim, no sources to support notability. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 8 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahmena Bokhari[edit]

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

Only claim is that she won a local beauty pageant. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. Not a notable beauty queen. Has not been active in any field. Salut65 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Mahmood[edit]

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

Fails GNG, only won a local beauty pageant. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a winner of a pageant that does not confer notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ talk News from Times of India, DNA India, Tribune Pakistan, The NAtion, The News Pakistan , hindustan times and Dawn are not unreliable. They are not unsourced. None of the links are spam. But you have removed the complete data from Miss Pakistan World. Do you have any clue what pageants are ? Can you see this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femina_Miss_India ? This page is all about Pageants in India.

Can you see their detailed report?

You removed the Miss Earth pageant from the page of Miss Pakistan World, that was all the winners who went to Miss Earth. There are over 150 pageants done by the contestants, yet only that information of Miss Earth was added. No one is hungry to add a lot, as I dont have time to look at links for the other 100 pageants. But you are removing data that is history. How come Miss India is having this data where as Pakistan cannot have the data, even though there were enough links stating that those particular contestants went to the Miss Earth pageant.

You have not done any research on pageants in wikipedia. Ask me? I can give you the help. Rather than you vandalizing the pages, when you dont have the capacity to learn about pageants and how they work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Venezuela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Brasil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femina_Miss_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World

Look at the pages of these national pageant. Miss Pakistan World, Mrs. Pakistan World are national pageants for Pakistan. For almost 18 years, the history of these pageants are reduced by you to just half a page. It seems you targeted all the winners of the pageant, the pageant and the organizer and deleted all the sources as well as nominated all pages for deletion.

I can give you over 1000 examples of pages on beauty queens. The winners of Miss Pakistan World have more links than any of these beauty queen pages mentioned to you. I dont see you going on a rampage to delete them. It seems no matter how much proof is given to you, you are aiming to delete history. Salut65 (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regarding Salut65's assertion that 1000's of other beauty queens have their own pages, I encourage you to review WP:WHATABOUTX. In a nutshell: plenty of articles exist that probably should not. You cannot use the simple fact that they exist to justify keeping another article that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Additionally, Wikipedia isn't about everything (WP:EVERYTHING). There are many niche beauty pageants, both big and small. Naturally, someone is going to win these pageants every year. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it's not in our interest to keep an article on every winner of every beauty pageant throughout the world. -Sebanderson (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a winner of a pageant that does not confer notability. Salut65 (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000)#544. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 544[edit]

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

Although this meets one of the WP:NASTCRIT criteria, it fails WP:GNG. No popular coverage, no professional coverage outside of widescale surveys and databases. Lithopsian (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000). With 7,000+ catalogued astronomical objects, there is no presumed notability for them. Needs specific coverage, not just databases. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because that part of NASTRO is kind of defunct anyway. It's silly to say that all NGC objects are notable. I would support the redirect as well. In the future all non-notable NGC objects should be redirected to their respective lists. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Grundy[edit]

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

a search of "Jessie Grundy" reveals only the same sources here, two of which are questionable and the rest are super local, blogs or interviews and a passing mention. Praxidicae (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Woerich (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE 21:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Removed — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's a businessman. Not a woman. How carefully did User:Johnpacklambert read the article before deciding "she" was not notable? (About as carefully as User:Coolabahapple, I suppose, but adding something to an incorrect list is less significant than !voting for its deletion.) PamD 15:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oops, apologies, please trout me Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are the usual Spotify+YouTube+Soundcloud traces of the subject's previous career, but I am not seeing evidence of attained WP:MUSICBIO notability. As to his present career in 2019-20, the available coverage is a mix of start-up profile pieces and brief profiles of the subject and his business as one among various Oakland social enterprise start-up. A man going about his business but at best this seems WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 9 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vogue Hong Kong cover models[edit]

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

Unsourced list, non-notable topic. Being a "Vogue Hong Kong cover model" is not a defining characteristic of fashion models; what's next, a list of pool players who have eaten at McDonalds? Judging by the see-also section, there may be several more lists of the same kind, but I haven't looked at them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On another note, I'm also seeing about the same level of non-notability (I hope that's the correct term) from the other Vogue country-specific articles, especially the ones made by the same user. Most of the country-specific Vogue magazine pages have nearly no sourcing, and the ones that do are simply links to the magazine website, rather than reliable sourcing. I support deleting not only this, but the other country-specific Vogue articles, though these might serve a better purpose being merged into the original Vogue magazine article (not with specifics like which models are in which magazine, but with a general overview of other country's magazines). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator blanked the list's content on the claim that it was unreferenced.[19] Apart from whether that is appropriate with the AFD pending (I do not see how WP:BLP would compel that here), this is factually incorrect given that the issue dates are clearly listed, so there is no question what the source is for each claim that a particular model was on the cover. That these are not independent sources from the subject is not relevant when we are merely verifying the content of those issues, i.e., who was on the cover. Anything beyond that is an issue for notability (about which I have no opinion) but not grounds for blanking. postdlf (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment further that the nominator invokes a guideline, WP:DEFINING, that is only about categories and that does not have any application to lists. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was accepted out of AfC by me due to similar lists found here which some have been in mainspace for 5 or 6 years. Since our standard is only "likely to pass an AfD", the fact that none of the other lists had been deleted in the past half decade was enough to pass that standard. That being said, I have zero opinion on this one way or another. Although, I would argue against the notion of this not being two related subjects. Vogue is one of the most popular fashion magazines, so being on the cover would be a big deal in the modeling world, and is also akin to other list articles such as List_of_Sports_Illustrated_Swimsuit_Issue_cover_models. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello! This was the first article I have ever created here in Wikipedia. As a fashion entusiat, I can speak that Vogue Magazine is the most important fashion magazine in the entire world, so, for sure this is a huge deal for models and celebrities. I am sorry if I didn't put all the necessary references. I thought that Vogue HK's website was enough for this. I don't know if this is interesting to you, but I also used the website Models.com for this research. Nowadays, with printed publications being increasingly devalued, I think it is fair and symbolic to maintain this archive, which, in a way, can be historical for the publishing market. Anyway, thanks for the support/help. I'm still learning about the Wikipedia's rules. (observation: sorry for my bad english, I am not 100% fluent yet, so I hope you understand my points). --Gbrandao95 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There are 21 articles listing Vogue cover models by nation. I see plenty of blue links in this article, so a valid list article. This is a notable accomplishment for models. Dream Focus 03:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN as above (many bluelinks) thru WP:LISTPURP: information, and navigation. the same applies to other vogue cover lists. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if this article is deleted there are a host of others that would have to go with it.Grmike (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hong Kong Vogue is a well-known magazine and list articles such as this are typically accepted. -Sebanderson (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is doubly mistaken – being on the cover of Vogue is actually defining. Consider the first entry, Fei Fei Sun; coverage such as this will naturally list her cover appearances as a significant achievement. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article certainly needs work. However, as stated above, appearing on the cover of Vogue is indeed a defining career moment for people. The article seems as if it ought to be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improvement though Lorelai1335 (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Lorelai1335[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

João Nuno Pinto[edit]

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:NARTIST or even WP:GNG. Search for sources brings up the personal website, the IMDB write up, mentions in festival listings, and a couple of interviews. Wikipedia is not a cinema directory nor a depository of all kinds of information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Vance[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Local wrestler who signed a contract yesterday. WP:TOOSOON HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people do not become notable for being signed or enrolled, they become notable for being covered for performances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that appears to meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. He's very new to the business and maybe later down the track he may accrue enough notability to have a page, but it is a case of WP:TOOSOON at this point. DTH89^{(sexy talk page)} 15:08, 7 May 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.