The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marquette University. Redirect to parent article as WP:ATD. Content remains in the history if anyone wants to merge anything they can verify. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure exactly what SNG this topic would be judged on, but a WP:BEFORE search brings up very little that's not published by Marquette University. I'm pretty sure anything published by Marquette would be considered a primary source not demonstrating notability for this archive. Most of the rest of the mentions I can find of this archive are either references to people being in charge of this archive on LinkedIn and such resumes and a few links from other university .edu domains giving a simple link to the online version of this archive in a list of "educational resources". I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert and Mccapra: - Given that the article currently has no sources, just an external link, I'd be hesitant to merge unsourced content. Hog Farm (talk) 15:35, 13 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) 03:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here is no where near the sourcing we would need to justify having an article on a 16-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it likely is a case of WP:TOOSOON with only a couple of singles released so far with no claim of any national charting. Also the article reads like a press release in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 17 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falling short of GNG. She is a singer but doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & a supposed actress but doesn’t satisfy any criterion from NACTOR. A before I conducted doesn’t suggest she is notable Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel Jeanie Lambe needs recognition as she has recorded a number of LPs as a jazz singer, having also worked with Danny Moss as a duet. She was a prolific jazz singer on the UK circuit in the 1960s and 1970s and has also appeared many times on the BBC's 'Sounds of Jazz' programme broadcast in the early 1970s and introduced by Peter Clayton. She has recorded albums for the specialist jazz label Nagel-Heyer Records.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandtplatt (talk • contribs)
Delete: Passing mentions of the subject can be found in The Rough Guide to Jazz and Who's Who of British Jazz but unless the entry on p512 of The Virgin Encyclopedia of Jazz (snippet view only visible on search) can be confirmed to be substantial, I am not seeing the level of coverage about the subject herself which is needed for WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Oxford Reference, has recorded two albums on a notable label and appeared many times on a major BBC programme so has claims to pass WP:NMUSIC in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added sources and citations. She has a full entry in Who's Who of British Jazz; I don't know why it doesn't show up online – ask Google. Coverage in multiple standard reference works is enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO #1; also meets #5 because of Nagel-Heyer releases. EddieHugh (talk) 10:17, 17 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, borderline WP:SNOW, as there is no reasonable possibility that this discussion will yield any other outcome. Subject is demonstrably an Olympic medalist, with sources existing sufficient to support that contention. BD2412T 22:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish I knew where some of the information in the article was sourced from. I just searched on Newspapers.com for a good 20 minutes or so and only found a couple mentions of him playing in suburban St. Louis leagues, and then nothing more than lineup listings. As of now, fails WP:GNG, would support deleting if nothing else can be found. SportingFlyerT·C 23:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Going to officially ask that this be merged back into Football at the 1904 Olympics (or whatever the proper title of the article is.) This fails WP:GNG, as do all of the other participants in this tournament, but there's just enough out there to include their participation in the tournament. Coverage of the tournament only showed up in St Louis and a brief mention in a Chicago newspaper. SportingFlyerT·C 14:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sports Reference [1] suggests he played in the 1904 Olympics, which would have him pass WP:NOLYMPICS. Can any other sources be found to verify that claim? Hog Farm (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of the 1904 Olympic association football tournament was, as far as I can tell, on the local side, and didn't discuss any of the players in any sort of significant fashion. Perhaps that was the style at the time, but I'm not sure there's notability for any players. [2][3][4] This supports his brother's broken leg, though: [5] Honestly, if I had my unilateral pick of what to do here, I'd redirect ALL of the players notable only for appearing in the 1904 football tournament to the 1904 football tournament page and update that page with player birthdates and birth/death locations. The coverage of this just doesn't support individual articles. SportingFlyerT·C 06:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an Olympic medalist, he is, of course, listed in the IOC's Olympic medalist database. Mallon's book on the 1904 Games also lists him. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are these just directory listings? The database certainly is. That's not enough to support a standalone article. Third place received a "trophy." [6]SportingFlyerT·C 15:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to a comment asking for further sources verifying the claim that Cooke played in the 1904 Olympics. Those sources confirm that. There should be no serious doubt that Cooke played all three games for the third-place association football team at the 1904 Olympics. (That puts him in WP:NOLYMPICS.) The IOC by fiat has declared that that means he is a bronze medalist, regardless of what physical object was presented at the time; we recognize IOC fiat in this area all the time for assigning/stripping/reassigning medals. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 10:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as an Olympic Games medal winner. GiantSnowman 10:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and I'm sure someone with the relevant knowledge of early 1900s newspapers etc (and resources to be able to access them) will be able to find some out. That person is not me. GiantSnowman 15:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, so this "keep" hinges on there's sources, somewhere. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it hinges on the fact he won a medal at the Olympics. Please do not ping me here again. You are badgering. GiantSnowman 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - common sense here, folks, we're not deleting Olympic medalists. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jonel, well we could merge them together! --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually some question as to whether he was a medalist at all - in my research of St Louis newspapers, there was an article that mentioned only gold and silver medals would be awarded for this competition as initially only four teams played. None of the players in the competition were ever covered significantly. If we can't write an article that passes WP:GNG, we shouldn't have an article at all. SportingFlyerT·C 14:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC recognizes him as a bronze medalist. For early Games, awards were inconsistent (e.g., 1896 winners received silver, not gold). Nevertheless, we credit first through third as gold, silver, bronze. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are other sources out there, though, we're going to have a permastub to a directory source. I've looked through all of the 1904 St Louis newspapers which covered the 1904 Olympic "Socker" (their spelling) and there's barely anything in there regarding who scored. Only three teams took part in the competition since one dropped out the week before, so everyone who took part in this competition medaled. And while several papers picked up Galt winning the gold medal, I've only found one contemporaneous source so far on the silver medal replay game. We'd be a lot better off compiling all of this data in one location instead of having non-WP:GNG qualifying stubs for all of the players. SportingFlyerT·C 06:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Snowman Idan (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to stop slavishly following rules that were developed for modern systems in their application to past ones. The 1904 St. Louis olympics were not really like modern olympics, and being a participant there was not in any way a real sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an argument for deleting a participant, User:Johnpacklambert. You ignore that he won a bronze medal. I'm not aware of any precedent for removing a medallist who meets WP:NOLYMPICS. Nfitz (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to second the idea we should reject the plan to create a bunch of permanent, non-GNG meeting stubs. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per above. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are several, and as stated above, as I said, it was a long time ago, so obviously will be more difficult to obtain more. Easily passes WP:NOLYMPICS.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Hard to find sources from over a century ago on anyone, but they likely exist in this case. Also, I'll note that JPL appears to have seconded his own !vote in a comment. While he is certainly entitled to post followup comments, I am saying this to ensure the closer does not give duplicate weight to it without checking the names. Smartyllama (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, which sources do you think are out there which haven't been analysed yet? St Louis papers from 1904 are on Newspapers.com and are easily reviewable by anyone with a subscription (which you can apply for with your Wikimedia library card). The Bill Mallon book, as far as I can tell, only lists his name in the lineup, though there may be a page that I didn't see in the book preview due to access reasons. We have two sports directories, one of which knows he worked for Liggett & Myers. Where's the significant coverage, and where else could we find significant coverage? This isn't an instance of "we don't know where to look, and he passes a SNG:" the football tournament featured only three teams, two of which were amateur teams local to St Louis, and though the gold medal match was covered in Chicago the tournament doesn't appear well covered outside St Louis as far as I can tell. None of these sources are significant on a personal level to any of the players. SportingFlyerT·C 19:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only easily meets NOLYMPICS, he even won a medal. More sources would be great, but there are some. The nominator should withdraw the nomination as it's clear that it's a keep, rather than wasting everyone's time arguing unnecessarily. Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, so you saying that the article can be kept with just 1 source? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tyw7 I'm not sure how you get that out of my comment - or the relevance. What I'm saying is that WP:N is very easily met, and you need to stop wasting our time with irrelevant arguments. Why start a hypothetical discussion about if there was only one source? Nfitz (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there's only one inline source presented, which can be a bit confusing - I've seen some people tag articles as unsourced even when there are sources presented in a format different than a ref-list template. Could also be referencing the fact there's only one source in the article that's not a directory reference listing. SportingFlyerT·C 04:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, exactly that. I've included more tags if Nfitz wanna nit pick the fact there's only 1 reference listed. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Pretty notable as a recognized medalist.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to note again that no one here has yet demonstrated WP:GNG. SportingFlyerT·C 00:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
We have a long-standing policy of deleting articles which pass a SNG which fail WP:GNG. A SNG is merely a presumption an article will meet WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article count towards WP:GNG unless the page in the Mallon book I can't access goes into more detail about him than just listing him in a lineup, and a thorough source of period records show papers don't really cover the participating players apart from lineups - most don't even have first names. SportingFlyerT·C 04:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you have a "policy" that contradicts the guideline as written? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is no such policy User:SportingFlyer - the policy is clearly defined as meeting either N or GNG. There's some precedent for removing some particularly borderline examples of NFOOTBALL who have only played a handful of professional football minutes and have since retired. But I'm aware of no precedent, let alone policy, of removing any medallists who meet NOLYMPICS. Please point to such a policy, or precedent, if I am wrong. Nfitz (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While my proposal here was opposed (and wasn't specific to a situation related to this article, as we have had several Olympian stubs kept recently that failed WP:GNG but nobody could even search for sources.) I think it clearly shows the general consensus that meeting a sports SNG does not mean GNG does not have to be met. Also note I'm not really advocating for this to be deleted, just merged upstream - according to sources at the time, he only won a bronze participation trophy in a three-team tournament featuring two local amateur St. Louis clubs, and we can only source him to directories. He's just not notable enough for a standalone article. SportingFlyerT·C 18:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competed at the Olympics. I've sourced that with the new Olympics source site (Olympedia) and created an archive link to Sports Ref. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:47, 17 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) 03:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is a self promotional Wikipedia article - I can see no way of meeting notability criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscotty26 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Agree with nom., article dose not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 09:32, 14 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.
Keep. The problem here is lack of online sources; unlike when I write about the US and Canada, I don't get to rely on trade journals or local newspapers because there are no digital copies of that material for most Mexican cities. This radio station has been on air since 1967, and looks like it was the first to broadcast in Puerto Vallarta. Raymie (t • c) 00:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Raymie, well the presence of third party sources are paramount for Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a systemic bias problem. I don't have a historic Puerto Vallarta newspaper available online to write about the early years of this station, for instance. (WP:BCAST also would establish this as notable, by the way.) Raymie (t • c) 18:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Raymie, are you saying ALL radio stations are notable? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tyw7, licensed radio stations do have notability, some more so that others. For full disclosure, I've collaborated with Raymie on an extensive rewrite for KWKW and I did a major rewrite of WAKR recently; those stations had significant cultural impacts in the towns they've served (another good example of a well-sourced article of a station with major cultural impact is WMMS). Unlicensed stations (eg, carrier-current college stations) and internet stations are a whole other deal and the notability of those vary wildly; oWOW Radio is an example of an internet station with sources and a notable founder. Point being, it's far more practical to keep XHEJ-FM and work to do as much of an expansion of the article with as many sources as possible. Nathan Obral (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. I strongly agree that licensed radio stations are notable enough to pass WP:BCAST. Aside from the one indicated in the article, these are the only sources I can find about the station: [7], [8], [9] (Just remove the "_" between LA PATRONA) and [10]. I hope these can help. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In disclosure, I...wrote that last link, and I do not cite myself under any circumstances. (Though I did add information relating to the continuity obligation.) If you're searching sources earlier than the last 10 years, by the way, you must search "XEEJ" as the callsign when it was on AM. Raymie (t • c) 22:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find sources for it being first on air, a firm sign-on date and a reference to its sale in 2004—and that's actually a lot given you rarely see sale prices quoted of Mexican broadcasting stations! Raymie (t • c) 22:16, 16 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.
Possibly fails WP:NGEO. No third-party source for said mountain range beyond stats and coordinates.
"Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will require an Arabic source search as the there's a linked Arabic wikipedia page, but it's not clear if it's on this mountain or something else. SportingFlyerT·C 22:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source in the ar.wiki article is the same dead link to a Mecca Governorate site. I’ve found this which is a GPS directory for Saudi Arabia including coordinates for it, this which is a news item about snow falling there, very unusually, and this which about the death of a walker on the mountain while out hunting. Mccapra (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, ehhh... it looks like passing mentions and I myself don't think those sources passes the reliability criteria. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are indeed passing mentions but that is sufficient for GEOLAND. We have articles on many mountains which are not the subject of in-depth discussion because there may not be a lot to say about them, but the notability threshold is clearly met in this case. We don’t just have coordinates, we have context. Mccapra (talk) 10:40, 14 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) 03:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A promotional article, fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:42, 14 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 Move without redirect to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Africa 2020 in Sudan. The later parts of the discussion make the very good point that cross-namespace redirects, while already generally discouraged, are practically unheard-of in the form of mainspace to meta-wiki. Given such a redirect is likely to be deleted itself at redirects for discussion if it were created here, the other option proposed seems to have the informed consensus. Given the article itself is basically a duplicate of the meta-wiki page it may be correct to soft-redirect it anyway once moved. ~ mazcatalk 13:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding any coverage for this organization/event in reliable sources (at least for the 2020 version). It appears to be connected to various things related to the Wikimedia Foundation, but doesn't meet WP:GNG, so it shouldn't remain in the mainspace. Hog Farm (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is it appropriate to have an interwiki redirect from mainspace to metawiki? That seems dubious to me, especially seeing as we almost never redirect mainspace to the WP namespace per WP:CROSS. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience at RFD, this would not likely survive an RFD discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is also my experience. Normally redirecting is a low cost WP:ATD but in this case I don't think it's appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect to project space. This doesn't appear to be intended as an article. BD2412T 03:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 19 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 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.
Does it matter? The article contains a small, but encyclopedic, packet of information, and it won't really make much of a different whether it's kept separate or merged into a list. I kind of like the idea of this article: it's the only one we've got about a five-letter sequence, and its existence, notability or no notability, only adds to the delightful quirky pedantry for which Wikipedia is so renowned (and yes, because it's five letters long, if merged, it should go to the list of Latin-script pentagraphs). – Uanfala (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I merged it back in 2012, but it was recreated. Can't say I care much one way or the other. — kwami (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the aptly identified List of Latin-script pentagraphs. If there is not more to say about this sequence than what is present in the article, then there's no reason for a standalone. Yes, it's already present in that list, with no less content than what is in that stub, excepting the examples (some of which could be added to the list entry). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:25, 15 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) 03:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD page was created on May 9, but was never properly placed into the logs until now, which I fixed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No hit in WP:VG/SE that is not an auto-generated database entry. IceWelder [✉] 16:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet GNG. Pahlevun (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. This was most likely promotional spam for yet another no-quality scam game on Steam. Dronebogus (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game has not even been released. Also, neither the developer nor the publisher is notable, so there is just no claim to fame for this game as of now. SD0001 (talk) 16:47, 16 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) 03:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing sources for this. It has a trivial mention in the first reference, and the second reference is a blog. I'm not convinced this has any real notability that one could form an article around, which may explain why the article doesn't even rise to the standard of definition. I've googled it in an attempt to check for sources, and, well, there's about 5000 hits, most of which seem to be very small-scale sellers. I'm not convinced this even rises to WP:GNG, though there is a chance that it might be better known under another name. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find four books with mentions, three of which are only Ayurveda directories (but Wikipedia is not a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY) and one with a small description, that's already used in the article. No indication of any medically reliable source that could serve to better cover it. —PaleoNeonate – 18:23, 15 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.
Fails WP:NSONGS. All coverage in the article is from albums reviews and interviews about its parent album When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. The song article should therefore be redirected to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. Cool Marc✉ 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: None of the sources discuss the song in depth, which means this likely fails WP:GNG. No prejudice against merging if there is some relevant info that can be merged. Username6892 21:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag for proposed deletion as the same user just tagged in on April 28, 2020, therefore it is not acceptable for AFD again. Per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Nominating. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 21:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 22:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Galendalia, I did a PROD on April 28 and withdrew it myself because I believed the article should be redirected instead. This is an AFD. Cool Marc✉ 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect God damnit. Why don’t you all just go to all the articles I have spent DAYS on and redirect them. I can’t believe I have wasted my time on this site. I feel like the 2 years I have been here was a complete waste. The number of articles I have edited to create my own, and everyone doesn’t like it and all my work goes down the fucking drain. My relatives were right. They said they said Wikipedia is not for me. I ignored there comments because I thought I had a chance here, but they were right. Waste of my time and should have left from the start. DarklyShadows (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DarklyShadows: as previously explained to you as per WP:NSONGScharting indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)Cool Marc✉ 22:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that has been your experience on Wikipedia. I would try to not look at this as a completely negative experience. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral at this time.
This is a type of dispute that is common in the music area. In some of the general areas, there are said to inclusionist and deletionist editors. In music, there are inclusionist and redirectionist editors. Inclusionists take an expansive view of how many articles the encyclopedia should have. In other areas, deletionists favor deleting articles that they do not consider to be notable or encyclopedic. In the music area, the restrictive view is that of redirectionists, who prefer to redirect songs to albums, and sometimes to redirect albums to artists. Disputes also arise concerning performers known as members of a particular group or band, and inclusionists support separate articles, while redirectionists prefer to redirect to the articles on the group or band. The basic issue is usually one of different philosophies of the encyclopedia with regard to how fine a level of granularity is in order for articles as opposed to redirect entries.
Often the interaction between inclusionists and either deletionists or redirectionists can be productive. Sometimes it becomes unpleasant and disruptive.
Some editors like to rely almost entirely on the general notability guideline. Other editors, typically inclusionists, prefer to rely primarily on special notability guidelines, and to write the special notability guidelines broadly to permit as much coverage as possible. There are also questions as to whether the special notability guidelines should be interpreted expansively to call for inclusion or only permissively to allow inclusion.
This is a classic inclusionist - redirectionist dispute. User:DarklyShadows is an enthusiastic inclusionist who supports large numbers of music articles.
Redirect to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. While there are good citations in this article, there should an indication that this song has received coverage from third-party, reliable sources outside of album reviews alone. As it was said above, chart position is only sign of possible notability. The focus should on the coverage, like something similar to this kind of article from Genius. I would be more than happy to change my vote if more sources can be found and either listed here or incorporated into the article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Although the song charted in Canada hitting a peak of 69, that is not a guarantee of notability. There lacks any significant sourced commentary in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Album reviews attest to the notability of the album and st lists serve only verify facts but do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per insufficient information for the song to merit its own article. I must say that articles like "!!!!!!!", "8 (Billie Eilish song)", "Listen Before I Go" and "I Love You (Billie Eilish song)" seem unnecessary too. We don't need to play gymnastics with the guidelines when there is virtually no new information for these songs to merit articles.--NØ 04:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - is fails to meet notability. Moreover, I agree with the user above regarding the other articles. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – per reasons above. – zmbro(talk) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per redirect votes. Not every song from the album deserves a separate article, especially when WP:NSONG hasn't been met. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 16:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per nom. The content can easily be included on the parent album's page . → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:37, 17 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) 03:39, 18 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. Without prejudice against Srnec's solution. Arbitrarily0(talk) 16:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A minor figure in late antiquity mentioned in passing by Procopius. Should be briefly mentioned in the Gothic War (535–554), rather than in a separate article. The content is unverifiable because it is cited to a book without page number - the exact same useless citation I've seen so far in all four of Reesorville's articles I've looked at and AfD'ed today. This is after I noted in an AfD I closed that Reesorville lacks the skills required to research and write articles about scholarly topics (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 10). Maybe they meant it to be a sort of placebo footnote? Sandstein 19:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This user is attempting to delete lots of articles I wrote after I put a started a deletion review for a page that he deleted. I didn't mean anything personally against him when I started the deletion review and I hope he can see it like that. Figures that are notable do not need to be notable today, but as long as they were notable at one time, then they count as notable and can be given articles. Perhaps I was wrong, but I didn't think wiki had a policy that lack of page numbers means that a source can't be used. Reesorville (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not established and I don't believe notability has the possibility of being established. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 22:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, the nominator's statement regarding verifiability is ungrounded in policy. The fact that a citation is imperfect does not at all mean that it is unusable -- most scholarly books have indexes, after all, and etexts are easily searchable. In this case, not only is the etext searchable at Google Books, but a basic Google search easily turns up the exact text cited. And other scholarly sources discuss the subject; there's even a scholarly debate over his identity [11]. Which makes clear that the nom didn't even make a pretense at complying with WP:BEFORE. Third, encyclopedias of classical literature and similar reference works cover figures like this (note the entry in the source I cited), making him a suitable subject for Wikipedia to cover. Finally, the groundless hostility the nom expresses toward the article creator here and elsewhere really makes this proposal inappropriate, particularly since the nom's invective about the article creator's skills is rooted in a gross, undeniable error about the quality of a source. (See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 10) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see that most keep votes target the nom instead of commenting on his arguments. WP:BEFORE does not mean that you refrain from nominating if you find single line trivial mentions. The subject fails SOLDIER guideline. He was a commander in an ancient army, but is not known for any of his deeds, without any claim to fame, he is not notable enough. The only thing that all sources mention is that he reproached the Romans for foresaking the Goths. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of Notability there are two points I should point out. He does indeed have very little coverage in sources as far as I can see and is largely known from Procopius' history concerning the Gothic wars where he is mentioned. He is definitely mentioned in more than one source, and I've added two more. However, I think perhaps not much is known about him beyond the meagre material in this article. That being said, wiki notability guidelines make clear that notability is not something that is lost after it exists. If a person was notable at any time in history, then he is notable forever, even if people in our time and age have barely ever heard of the person. The gothic war in Italy was one of the most significant conflicts of the 6th century and being a commander on one side of the war, as well as having an important role in a key siege, would certainly have made him notable in that time period. We have articles about military officers from contemporary wars and military actions who admittedly were far less significant in our time than this person would have been in his. Reesorville (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is sometimes identified with Wacca, majordomo of Theodahad. This pair/individual could be treated in a single article. They have entries in the Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire and Patrick Amory's People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489—554. Theodahad has a biography (2014). Leaning keep if this solution is acceptable to all. I'd be willing to implement it. Srnec (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that - I'm certainly OK with connecting it with that. Reesorville (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or merge somewhere. Ideally, the material on Wacca should be merged in. I was going to suggest that this is a case of a person in late antiquity about whom we know nothing more than is in the article. In such cases, the appropriate course is either to keep or to merge; certainly not delete. DONOTBITE seems to apply to the attack by the nom on the author's competence. We were all inexperienced once, and only get experience by effort and learning when others pointing out our failings. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 16 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) 03:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pure original research. The article hasn't had any sources since its original creation in 2011, and the term seems to have been invented by the author - a Google search for the term "variable translation control" returns nothing but a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors. JudgeDeadd (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a student paper-turned-article. WP:VG/SE turns up no results, and none of the games supposedly using the technique mention it. IceWelder [✉] 16:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources available at all. None cited in the article. Almost an A11? SD0001 (talk) 16:50, 16 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. No prejudice against a future merge. Arbitrarily0(talk) 15:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is potentially notable - several books mention this plague, but I'm not sure that there's enough sourcing to sustain a whole article. It might be better covered in an article about the history of Rome, or the church, or Pope Gregory.
As it is, the article is not actually about the plague, but about religious rituals undertaken against it. The sourcing is inadequate, apart from a LA Times article about another plague: We have a dead link, a book (without page number), and a self-published religious website. I believe these cannot be accepted as sources given the identity of the creator: I noted in an AfD I closed that the creator, Reesorville, lacks the skills required to research and write articles about scholarly topics (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 10). These contents may be entirely made up or based on faith rather than any sources. If the topic is notable, the article would need a rewrite from scratch. Sandstein 19:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This user is attempting to delete lots of articles I wrote after I put a started a deletion review for a page that he deleted. I didn't mean anything personally against him when I started the deletion review and I hope he can see it like that. If there is a concern here that there is specific content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, I think the proper process to follow is that it should be specifically mentioned on the talk page and removed if it is challenged and sources cannot be found for it. I absolutely guarantee that the information written here is found in those sources at the bottom of the article. I didn't realize that not including a page reference means that the article can be deleted. Reesorville (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination makes no case for deletion. It says that the topic is covered in books. It is indeed easy to find an entry about it in an encyclopedia and this demonstrates that an encyclopedic article can be written. The nomination then degenerates into WP:ADHOM. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article about Roman history and voters should've some understanding of the subject before commenting and voting. The Plague of Justinian was not a single event, rather a long term pandemic that had many recurances. Academics tend to talk about them together instead of making separate entries. Usually, they discuss them as waves, under the same heading. So there is the first wave, secondwave, third wave....so on and so forth. This article is about the fifth wave of the pandemic, that the creator has incorrectly labelled as plague of 590, whereas the true date is 588-591. This corpus from the University of California, will make it easier to understand for those who do not have the time to trawl the net. Just because editors find this mentioned in books is not the grounds for keeping, strictly speaking there was no plague of 590. If you want me to quote policy, then this should be deleted as it duplicates a page that already exists. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the fifth wave of this plague in general, but it is about the part of this plague that was specifically in the city of Rome in this year. It is a notable event because it 1) killed a Pope, 2) was a key event preceding Gregory the Great's election as pope later in the year 3) was remembered for a long time, depicted in art and gave the name to a notable landmark in Rome. These attributes are specifically dealing with Rome itself and not other regions. Even the covid-19 pandemic currently going on has plenty of localized articles about the pandemic within different countries or regions. Wiki policy doesn't say that if something can be merged into a larger topic that it necessarily has to be.
However, the point that you are making has validity in it, because you could certainly add more context to the article by placing it giving background to the waves of plague following from 541. Reesorville (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Reesorville My opinion still remains the same. That the article should not have been created. If you can come up with academic sources that talk about this plague as an exclusive pandemic, I will be willing to change my vote. A short entry in an encyclopedia is not an academic source for such a matter. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Plague of Justinian, which is quite inadequate for the whole pandemic. We have precedent for a separate article: Plague of Mohill and Plague of Amwas. I'm not sure what MistyGraceWhite means by "sources that talk about this plague as an exclusive pandemic". This article is about an outbreak or epidemic, not the pandemic itself. For referencing, see Plague and the End of Antiquity. Srnec (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plague of Justinian is indeed inadequate for the whole first pandemic, because that is not its subject, although some bits try to stretch it to cover the whole pandemic. We need a proper article on that. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue against merging it because if the two were combined this would turn into a big chunk of that article, since it is already so short. If the plague of Justinian article was much longer and contained more sub-topics, I think turning this into a sub-section would be less out of place in a merger. Reesorville (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Plague of Justinian. This is simply a wave of the Plague of Justinian, I think including it in that article will help people understand the religious component of the plague. I also think that the Plague of Justinian RJHSLatinteacher (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable. When we get the proper article we need on the First plague pandemic, this might be merged there, but not to the Plague of Justinian. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Outbreaks of disease are notable in their own right and should have their own articles, even if some scholars regard them as part of a pandemic. They are far more notable than minor skirmishes in wars, which often pass FA without any suggestion of merging or deletion. There is also no agreement among scholars about the name and dates of the pandemic. This article regards the 590 outbreak in Rome as part of the Justinianic Plague of 541 to 600. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: That article says very clearly that the Justinianic plague lasted until "around 750". (It discusses a plague in Theophanes's Chronicle year 747.) The "541 to 600" dates you quote are mentioned in a quite different context! GPinkerton (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes apologies but it does not affect my comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name First plague pandemic is no longer a redirect to Plague of Justinian and has the beginnings of a proper article. There are 18 or 15 epidemics to include there (depending on how they're counted) so a good deal of editing is needed to bring it to the status it deserves! GPinkerton (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement. Even if this is only one outbreak of a long-running Plague of Justinian, I see no reason to delete it. The sources used are rather too much hagiographies, rather than secular history (such as chronicles), but that is a matter where the article should be improved, not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement. Same reasons as given by Peterkingiron, Andrew (Davidson) and Dudley Miles above.Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:45, 17 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) 03:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per Wikipedia standards; article averages only a few pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See WP:PAGEVIEW and WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fluff piece without any notability. All I can find from a search are a few PR pieces, nothing demonstrating notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet any element of WP:CORP or the GNG. This article and one on Cheapair are the sole Wikipedia activities of the creator, which given the common element (that a fellow by name of Jeff Klee is a co-founder of both) suggests a COI violation. Ravenswing 02:45, 11 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.
Catholic martyr and supposedly a saint. The topic is potentially notable, but the article cites no reliable sources, only self-published websites, and a book (without page number) that I believe cannot be accepted as a source given the identity of the creator: I noted in an AfD I closed that the creator, Reesorville, lacks the skills required to research and write articles about scholarly topics (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 10). The contents may be entirely made up or based on faith rather than any sources. If the topic is notable, the article would need a rewrite from scratch. Sandstein 19:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn; now sourced by Anupam; thanks! Sandstein 12:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a Roman Catholic saint and this article should be retained on Wikipedia. Although the article does not have much sources now, it can be expanded to include more. I will try myself to do this. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This user is attempting to delete lots of articles I wrote after I put a started a deletion review for a page that he deleted. I didn't mean anything personally against him when I started the deletion review and I hope he can see it like that. If there is a concern here that there is specific content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, I think the proper process to follow is that it should be specifically mentioned on the talk page and removed if it is challenged and sources cannot be found for it. I did not make up the information and it does come from those sources. I didn't include page references before and I didn't realize that not doing so would mean that everything in the article could be deleted. I'll remember better in the future. Reesorville (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep Whatever enmity there may be between the parties here, the fact is that Butler and Baring-Gould, who also discusses her, are sufficient evidence as to her place within the Roman martyrology (and I would point out that "supposedly a saint" evinces a lack of understanding: a martyr would be titled "St. X"). One is not obligated to believe the legendaria of this figure in order to accept that the two of them (and there are other sources) are relating the stories accurately. Perhaps there are notability standards for martyrs and saints which she does not meet (though I think that is not likely), but this nomination doesn't address that. Mangoe (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There isn't much content here anyway, so the "article would need a rewrite from scratch" argument is just not a reason for deletion. The first book source is enough to make this notable, not that there aren't more sources available. SD0001 (talk) 12:55, 16 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) 03:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not notable because it says A list of his Successors; firstly became published by one of his descendant Delwar Hossain Maizbhanderi in his work 'Gausul Azam Maizbhandarir Jiboni O Karamat, and that's more a hagiographical source. The present sources in this list have been examined by User:GorgeCustersSabre, who says that only few passing mentions in Bengali newspapers mention a few of his disciples and the rest seems to be more hagiography. Parts of it may be merged to Syed Ahmad Ullah and this list be deleted. It has been tagged with multiple issues from 6 years and the issues remain unaddressed. Hence this. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a gentle comment: unaddressed issues are not a reason for deletion (AfD is not cleanup); but clearly, Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Syed Ahmad Ullah is notable and his order is significant enough to be described on his bio page, but I do not see this very long list as notable given that few of the listed leaders are notable. Several Bengali newspapers do mention some of the recent leaders in passing, for example for attending an event or making a statement about Syed Ahmad Ullah or the benefits of Sufism, but these aren’t sufficient in my view to justify this list’s existence on Wikipedia. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No scope of the list like this.--Irshadpp (talk) 09:00, 17 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.
Catholic martyr and supposedly a saint. The topic is potentially notable, but the article cites no reliable sources, only a self-published website. I noted in an AfD I closed that the creator, Reesorville, lacks the skills required to research and write articles about scholarly topics (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 10). The contents may be entirely made up or based on faith rather than any sources. Sandstein 19:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn because the necessary verification in the article has now been done by Anupam (thanks!). Sometimes AfD is in fact cleanup... Sandstein 16:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a Roman Catholic saint and this article should be retained on Wikipedia. Although the article does not have much sources now, it can be expanded to include more. I will try myself to do this. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This user is attempting to delete lots of articles I wrote after I put a started a deletion review for a page that he deleted. I didn't mean anything personally against him when I started the deletion review and I hope he can see it like that. I think I probably relied upon a Chinese catholic website written in mandarin for this information many years ago, although obviously I didn't cite it; I can look around though. If there is a concern here that there is specific content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, I think the proper process to follow is that it should be specifically mentioned on the talk page and removed if it is challenged and sources cannot be found for it. On the other hand, to delete the entire article would mean that the page shouldn't exist at all on wiki, not even as a stub. There are certainly reputable sources, however, that confirm that Bai Xiaoman is a Catholic saint, hence the idea of deleting the entire article doesn't make a lot of sense. Reesorville (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
obvious keep The most basic searching produces decent sources including one from Lehigh University Press which seems unimpeachable. This comes across as a bad faith nomination. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, and trout for the nominator. Deletion isn't cleanup, and this easily passes the GNG. Appears that the nomination is based on the author, not the content. CJK09 (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout Of course there are some issues with the creator's overall research style, but this is not the venue for that. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:06, 13 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.
Speedy Keep as meets WP:NTV and GNG, Clearly BEFORE wasn't done. Admittedly this was a very shortlived show with only having one series in 2012 and that was it however there's certainly notability here: [1][2][3][4][5]
@Davey2010: Two links that you can't even access that say "PAID POST" on behalf of the advertiser, a review, an unreliable gossip source, and a puff piece that didn't age well make this a speedy keep to you? Trillfendi (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I cannot access those so I have no idea what those 2 consist of so won't comment on them, IMHO the WNYC source isn't great however it isn't bad either, Either way the rest are absolutely fine. –Davey2010Talk
@Davey2010: Buzzfeed literally just took a press release from straight from Oxygen and put it in a quote box as used that as their "article". Imagine thinking that is absolutely fine. Trillfendi (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, Still coverage at the end of the day, I would suggest you withdraw this. –Davey2010Talk 23:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest you start analyzing. Trillfendi (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
>Implying I didn't, Programme is notable and I've proven that, Again I would suggest you withdraw this. –Davey2010Talk 23:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTV, which says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." The New York Times review and WNYC article provided by Davey2010 support the claim for notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I “save” a futile article that still looks like shit? TV.com is not even a reliable source. Even a child knows that. Half the cast’s “hometowns” remain empty. And learn how to use the diff template. Trillfendi (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you is the term you're looking for- It's a source - It states the information required, Learn how to source articles and learn BEFORE!. –Davey2010Talk 13:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article you would not have even come across let alone give a “flying toss” about had you not been stalking my contributions like you always do. My “Before” didn’t show anything worth saving for a network that completely abandoned the format. Nothing was notable about the show for a Wikipedia article. You think any mention of something is worth inclusion even when it’s literally pulled from the promotional press release as if there are no policies? That’s asinine. Trillfendi (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I watchlisted the article back in 2013-2014 to source it but until now had completely forgot to check back on it. Well the programme is clearly notable and I've proved that. Again I don't care what you think, I care our readers and what they think. The programme is notable and I've proven that. –Davey2010Talk 13:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. I think we passed the point some time ago where we need to keep this open. Anyone for a SNOW close? - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was going to do it myself, but I preferred to vote per those that hadn't voted...Buidhe, could you do the honors packing away this WP:SNOW :) serial # 17:20, 12 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.
This is a limited edition special version of a notable game. While the game itself is notable, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources that actually discuss this specific special set. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainment theme variation of the game. Just because something mentions LOTR does not make it notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Risk (game)#Official licensed Risk games - I agree with the above about the lack of reliable sourcing means this particular variant does not come close to passing the WP:GNG. But, a valid target exists, and it is already listed there. Rorshacma (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorschacma. —烏Γ(kaw)│ 23:12, 07 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. Severely lacking in sources, but has a sensible redirect target where it can be mentioned. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 11 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) 03:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with his television appearances alone he must meet GNG, also as an industry spokesman. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Care to let the rest of us in on those TV-appearances? Kleuske (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just do a google video search. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not how it works. Kleuske (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Recommend that Gleeanon409 provide sources to back their claim and substantiate their keep vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a full plate but will try to list sources. Also, there is a case to be made for merging this article to the parent company which non has also put up for deleting. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing much in the way of coverage in reliable independent sources. He occasionally gets quoted as the travel expert in various news stories, but I don't think it's enough. The main keep argument so far has been WP:MUSTBESOURCES, which is fairly unconvincing. Agree with the WP:PROMO issues. It'd be reasonable to redirect to Zoom Vacations, if that article is kept, although I am also skeptical of notability for his company. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:05, 15 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.
Two different editors have PRODded this article and a third nominated it for speedy. I deprodded it once and contested the speedy. I'm taking it to AFD as there's clearly a desire to delete. However this is procedural on my part and I believe the page should be kept. There are multiple references which demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, particularly for the subject's work as a TV host. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through editing. pburka (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this highly promotional article has been deleted, under a variety of names such as Luca G Beradi, before both as Draft and as an article but it keeps on being resurrected. Fails WP:GNG makes no claim to any significant notability and if deleted needs to be salted. See also various name variants . VelellaVelella Talk 22:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the article needs to be rewritten, almost from scratch, and I would question the significance of the roles that Berardi has had; that being said, I don't feel qualified to determine the significance of Kenyan television shows, there are multiple WP:RS in the article in its present form, and it's possible that, from the perspective of a Kenyan Wikipedian, his roles could meet WP:NACTOR. As an inclusionist, I'd prefer to err on the side of retention. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - promotional piece for a non notable subject falling short of all notability criteria.Celestina007 (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This really should have been AfDed months ago instead of the inappropriate repeated draftifications, PRODs, and CSDs. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The tone may be promotional, there may be a history of behavioral issues, and he may not pass WP:NACTOR, but I urge editors to look at the sources. Whether we like it or not, he's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Google News easily turns up more, in multiple languages, over a period of several years. This ought to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG, which is more important than any topic-specific guidelines. Unless someone explains why this is WP:NOT, I don't see how the subject could be non-notable. pburka (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable based on multiple news articles from reputable sources featuring the subject as a person of interest.[1][2][3]Laanders (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laanders: I've added a {{reftalk}} to keep your references inside this AFD. An alternative would be to use inline links ([https://www.aftonbladet.se...]) instead. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. There was an awful lot of puff in this article, and many, many claims which were simply not in the citations that are included. There was also a great deal of completely irrelevant content - for instance, a level 3 award being issued by the London College of Music, a minor London music school, is not notable in and of itself. However, I've now cleaned a lot of the article up, and what remains is existent in reliable sources. As a consequence, I feel it should be kept. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judging from the article, he needs more press coverage, he can be deleted now and be re-created when more information is released by the press. Editoneer (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How much press coverage would you consider to be enough? GNG only requires "multiple" sources. By my count, there are seven articles included in the references, and three more identified by User:Laanders above. pburka (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologises, I didn't looked this youngling up to find references. Editoneer (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He does meet WP:BASIC per presented sources. Also WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 08:43, 15 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 English-language editions of The Hobbit. For the most part those advocating keep (as opposed to merge) do not give a policy or guideline basis for that position and so gets little weight. However, there is a clear consensus that there is a valid alternative to deletion which is to merge to a different article. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A long a rambling work that is full of WP:OR, has no references to back up it’s existence, there are no sources for the majority of the article and the ones that are there do not discuss the topic of the article. Lava Lamps (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/MergeRedirect to English-language editions of The Hobbit Nothing you have written is a valid reason for deletion: long articles can be edited, references can be added. So, the question is not what the article is like NOW, but whether the subject is notable. That can not be determined reliably from an article, unless the article is well-cited. When an article is badly-cited, as here, the only way to tell if it is notable is to look elsewhere. The complication here is that much of it was written by Strebe, an expert, so the rest of us will find his knowledge hard (qua, impossible) to match. However, there is little doubt that the subject is of interest; early editions are extremely valuable, so specialists have studied them in detail. I'll see about some sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've investigated the sources, and the position is extremely odd. There is one other source, Frisby 2009, which I have added (Frisby, Steven M. (October 2009). "Identifying First and Second Edition Printings of the Houghton Mifflin Hobbit". The Tolkien Collector (30): 16–32.), and the printing history. The main source, however, that people point to is a paper by Strebe ... and when you click on it, that's ... this article. So it's effectively pure WP:OR, sourced only to its author. Unfortunately, he has not published it anywhere else, so it's unciteable. I suggest we redirect to the existing list of English-language editions. It may be that some details from Frisby will be usable there in due course. Until then there's little that can safely be merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are valid reasons for raising afd. Long, old articles with no references are clearly indicative of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, regardless of the knowledge of the article contributors. Lava Lamps (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That connection is your opinion, not policy. Some old articles are long and excellent. It's nothing to do with notability, which is the relevant criterion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be interested in reading the policy that says articles with no claims to notability and made up purely of contributor synthesis rather than reliable secondary sources are above AFD discussion. Lava Lamps (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I said there is no policy connection between an article's being (A) old and (B) long and therefore (C) being made up. I also said I'd look for sources, and that notability depends on the existence of sources, not what is in the article. That remains true. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strebe is still an active contributor. Has anyone asked them to update the article with more references? — Toughpigs (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the except of the lack of quoted sources, this is an informative, well-written article. There are sources to back up the information given in the article, e.g. the Frisby paper, the Hammond bibliography, Strebe's page and the printing history page at tolkienbooks.net. It just needs some work to identify where the information have come from. Deagol2 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A very detailed, erudite article that offers valuable information on the subject of a classic book. However, I don't think it warrants an stand-alone article due to overlap with an existing, broader article. It would have better context, after some trimming and editing, as part of English-language editions of The Hobbit. Alan Islas (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge It needs better inline citations but that's not a reason to delete.Iamnotabunny (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content supported by inline citations to English-language editions of The Hobbit. Too much overlap, but there's some valuable content in this article that should be kept. Hog Farm (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It's not simply a matter of missing inline citations; rather, it seems that the bulk of the article is copy-pasted from [12]. There is no evidence that this site is a reliable source. In fact, from the url, it appears to a be personal page belonging to the Wikipedia editor who wrote the article in question. The other sources only back up a few basic facts. In particular, the Hammond & Anderson biography is only used for the first date of publication and a description of an illustration. The Marks source only describes the history of a book-binding company. The A&U and tolkeinbooks cites provide print run sizes only. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article being in less than stellar shape is not reason for deletion. There is no doubt in my mind that this article can be greatly improved an is passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 13:15, 17 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.
Added many reliable sources and also cut shot the poorly sourced information so need not to be deletedMaizbhandariya (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is this sourcing referencing [[13]]? How does this establish notability [[14]]? Also you appear to try and source his lineage to Muhammad to a defunct and apparently self published website as seen here [[15]]. People reviewing this article should take great care in checking the references added. They do not always match what they are being sourced to. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sort out the previous problems actually the article was not created by me so How can i be aware of defunct sources I have just come to page for adding the word[[ Tarika for your revert and sees that ymthe article is nominated so hurrily i was adding the sources
ThanksMaizbhandariya (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
I am changing my argument to Merge having finally gotten around to looking at George Custer Sabre's efforts below and considering that most of the sources that were provided were more about the man than the tariqah. Sorry it took so long. —A little blue Boriv^_^vOnward to 2020 20:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Syed Ahmad Ullah. The Sufi order is significant so some of the information is worth keeping on Wikipedia. This is clear from the book cited in footnote 1, which is a major academic study of the Tarika-e-Maizbhandari (Hans Harder, Sufism and Saint Veneration in Contemporary Bangladesh). George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the whole book about the Tariqah or just a section of it? If the latter, there needs to be specific pages cited. —A little blue Boriv^_^vOnward to 2020 07:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sufi order is significan there should be an article on itMaizbhandariya (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the Consensus have been reached to keep the article need to Closing the discussion— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maizbhandariya (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: with history to Syed Ahmad Ullah (as a minimum); I think its not a WP:SURPRISE so should be ok. I'm also open to a merge if someone feels they want to do good job. Recommend closer salts the redirect (after appropriate Rcats added) but with no prejudice against replacement by article if can be demonstrated to be notable to closer or WP:DRV. If 3 suitable references per WP:THREE were presented clearly here I am open to keeping. I am VERY concerned about the amount of disruption and canvassing of keep !votes for this AfD and closer should take that into account; but in the end the question is whether the subject is notable; recommend admins consider dealing with with AfD disruptor(s) unless they repent and especially if it continues. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Syed Ahmad Ullah#Tarika-e-Maizbhandari, i.e. a section of the article on Syed Ahmad Ullah. The current article on Tarika-e-Maizbhandari contains just three sentences on Tarika-e-Maizbhandari. These are:
Tarika-e-Maizbhandari or the Maizbhandari Sufi order is a Sufi Tariqa (religious order) based in Chittagong District of Bangladesh founded by Ahmed Ullah Maizbhanderi. (There is a second sentence that repeats this information.)
Saifuddin Ahmad Maizbhandari is the living leader of this Tariqa.
The Maizbhandari Tarika is known for its gatherings for spiritual listening and devotional music, which are important in Bengali Sufi traditions.
If this is all that can be written about the topic based on reliable sources, there is not enough to justify an article on it.-- Toddy1(talk) 10:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Toddy1, this is a judicious and insightful summary. I think far more can be written and I'll try to do so as time permits, using reliable third-party sources. All good wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Toddy1 and ATD-R. SERIAL# 13:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the clear consensus to redirect. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sulfurboy: There is no real difference between a merge and a redirect statement, since the redirect is a place where the merge has already taken place.-- Toddy1(talk) 10:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AaqibAnjum, There's a couple of keeps and a delete mixed in (even though with possibly weaker arguments). Either way, that's not clear consensus. There shouldn't be any issue with letting this run another week if a couple more r/m votes come in then another closer can process it at anytime without having to wait the whole week. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is the only known Sufi order in Bangladesh hence claims separate notability. HM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.193.105.71 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
KeepThis article qualifies notability and it is in the good state I will surely support it to keep106.193.105.95 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Seems religious propaganda. ~Moheen(keep talking) 10:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Syed Ahmad Ullah as the Sufi order is important so therefore at least a bit of the information should be kept on Wikipedia but this page doesn't have the sufficient amount of information on Tarika-e-Maizbhandri, (as mentioned before by Toddy1), rather it has more information on the founder. - Hamza Ali Shah(talk) 00:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Hamza Ali Shah (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[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 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.
Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks reliable sources and fails WP:SIGCOV. Primarily promotional in nature, with the one news source referenced (from London Evening Standard) no more than a "puff" piece. Geoff | Who, me? 18:14, 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.
Draftify. The article is certainly in need of rewriting, but I can find sources, so I would suggest draftifying the article so that it may be expanded and cleaned up. JavaHurricane 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shahpura Hotels article States proper Referencing and Facts, Therefore there is no reason for it to be nominated for Deletion (Shekhawatregion (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)).[reply]
Reason for Deletion stated by MistyGraceWhite is irrelevant and does not state anything. So Kindly go through the article again if there is anything to improve the article, do let us know (Shekhawatregion (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)).[reply]
This Discussion should be closed and the article should be kept on Wikipedia Articles, as the article has been checked and all points have been stated with proper facts and references keeping in mind Wikipedia Rules (Shekhawatregion (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
delete this looks like paid for spam about a hotel chain that has exactly 0 coverage in independent reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep this article. Shahpura Hotels has described itself an Independent Hotel Owner, Operator and as far as Coverages are concerned, kindly check the references part. Companies Like Conde Nast traveler, telegraph U.K. who have featured the Hotel group on their sites and are listed there. So kindly go through all the references mentioned and check the same. if there is anything to improve the article, then do let us know (Shekhawatregion (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)).[reply]
@User:Shekhawatregion ok this use of us is a bit concerning to me. Are you a single person or are you a corporation or a company which has many workers etc. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:MistyGraceWhite As Already mentioned in the Article, Shahpura Hotels is a Management Company which Owns, Manages and Operates Hotels in India. (Shekhawatregion (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@User:Shekhawatregion but is your account the official account of the company or just a simple person who has no connection to the company and is just saying all of this stuff on his won, and making all of these edits on his own. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- shameless puff piece by company account. It is theoretically possible that an article could be written about this chain, but this advert is not that article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear promotional puff piece, and violation of WP:UPE by an editor who has now admitted to being the "official" voice of the company. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 17 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.
Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG without sufficient independent sources covering the organization in a non-trivial manner. User:Namiba 17:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively Merge key points to Nokomis East, which will improve that stub article (WP:ATD-M). A full merge would provide WP:UNDUE weight toward this organization within the geographic stub article, hence my !vote to merge selectively. North America1000 23:17, 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 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.
Delete. The topic is pretty obviously notable, but the article is a copyright violation of its main source. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete please as an unambiguos copyvio - all of it, from two sources. There's nothing left once that is removed. Someone can have another go at creating an original article later, but there's nothing to keep at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:09, 15 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) 03:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not enough RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional effort in which every sentence seems to be advertising something- either him, his music or his fashion so it seems to be a case of WP:PROMO. Also couldn't find much coverage on google in reliable sources, for example there is no bio or album reviews at AllMusic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 17 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 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.
Comment Hi MarkZusab! (and Caro7200, as you're vote is based off of this.) Hope you're staying well. If we're going to go by NALBUM, shouldn't this article's content be merged/redirected to the artist's article? I'm looking specifically at the part where it says that if the article is unlikely to go beyond stub, it should be merged to the artist's article if it exists. I look forward to your reply, -- puddleglum2.0 21:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Puddleglum2.0. Looking at the sources that MarkZusab provided, as well as ones that another Google search returned, I do think that "there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." It's a stub right now, and it may only become a short article, but an editor could "reasonably" expand it. As with many Wikipedia policies, it's all in the interpretation. This may be Lennon's only album where that's possible (but so far it's her only album with its own article). Caro7200 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarkZusab, also a Nashville Scene article. Caro7200 (talk) 21:09, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. She lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources and has simply not done enough. Her work as a production manager for Gidi Up and her nomination at the ELOY Awards are not enough to justify a separate article at this time. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 15:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No in-depth significant coverage or any coverage at all for that matter in reliable sources independent of subject.Celestina007 (talk) 17:23, 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. v/r - TP 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The more I look into this article the more I realize that Wikipedia is being misused for WP:SELFPROMOTION. Previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination)) had substantial support towards delete but it was the ignorance of the nominator (relative of the subject) which outweighed and ruined all sensible arguments.
Years have elapsed, to date there are no results of the subject on Google news or Google books. Entirely fails WP:GNG. Orientls (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orientls: So the first, second, and third Keeps were wrong since as closing admin SoWhy comented in third result - No policy requires sources to be in English nor that they are available online; per WP:NEXIST their existence is sufficient. Consensus was that sufficient such sources exist to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC.2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel this BLP managed to avoid getting deleted in the previously deletion nominations due to the reason that BLP was very cluttered with unreliable sources and OR which gave the impression that the subject is notable. However, this time around I've managed to cleanup the BLP, remove OR as well all the unreliable references cited previously. And keeping in view of the current coverage, I can safely conclude that the subject fails to meet GNG as well WP:AUTHOR. I still see most of the coverage is either trivial or merely namecheking while the rest of the coverage discuss his non-notable work.
Also keeping in view of the fact that the subject has been writing his WP bio for a long time now for self-promotion purpose, there's a possibility that all the coverage currently cited in the BLP was produced on the behest of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your neutrality is visible, I found the real reason as you practiced in these diffs - and you attacked this subject-- 1, 23,
4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nolelover: It is an opinion piece written by a writer not affiliated with the source, in the form of an interview which make it fall under self-published content. --Saqib (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions in unreliable columns is far from meeting WP:GNG. Are you agreeing that an author from Nederlands is having no significant coverage, not even in Dutch publications? Orientls (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistani Urdu language newspapers are nutrious for producing paid news stories, among sensationalism and non-factual content. I would never establish notability based on coverage in Urdu-language newspapers, solely. --Saqib (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know Dutch language sorry. However, I think, the subject is quite notable but we need more references. If it the case of paid stories/articles, that is problem everywhere, it is not only limited to Urdu. The newspapers I cited, mainly, Rising Kashmir, it isn't a Pakistani paper, rather it is an Indian paper based in Kashmir. I would not agree on this point. Still, we need more BLP sources and I'm trying my best to fix that. He is referred to as Urdu poet and journalist, and thus, we shall have to rely on Urdu sources, unless they ain't depreciated. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Draftify: Going through the submissions history, I assume there is a COI issue. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP requires sources to discuss the subject in a neutral way, but when you read the sources attached with this article, it is clear they are promotional in nature and might be paid. The subject has a long history of promoting himself and from time to time nominate his own article for deletion (whenever someone objects his notability) and then withdraws it when it is about to delete. Same happened in previous nomination by his daughter. It fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. The article is a mess and should be deleted per WP:TNT. Störm(talk) 07:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. I would expect coverage from better sources about a person who spent more than 10 years in self-promotion than the unreliable sources mentioned above. Tessaracter (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: fwiw, I'm unconvinced this is Ehsan based on what the IP is saying/linguistic patterns, but even if it is I think it's a bit over-the-top to refer to this as "tricks" and tactical decisions. If Ehsan is anything, he's never fully been able to understand the culture of WP despite trying his best to learn the rules, and can feel wronged by the relatively brusque way we all go about our business. No need to make this a bad faith thing. Nole(chat·edits) 17:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me amusing part is the way IPs have been throwing the archived links and sources in AfD's and in the talk pages over the years because they're all very similar in nature. Please see this, this, this, this, and this. And isn't that interesting this IP has voted delete here but the same IP on your talk page opposing the deletion of this page. Anyways, I apologies for going aggressive If it sounds like that. --Saqib (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your imagination amusing me as well, I copied and paste as those were posted - You only removed reliable sources to get the article deleted, edit history proves that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1c00:1604:bb00:459b:2ced:129e:aab0 (talk • contribs)
Sources
DESiegel: These sources and nomination for deletion? - 3 times notable per GNG?
Keep Subject is notable. Good Urdu sources.— Hammad(Talk!) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hammad, there is a issue that these sources don't discuss in detail and are of low-quality and probably paid by the subject. Are you familiar that this article has long history of paid editing and promotional content written by the subject himself? I think you should be detailed in your comment. Störm(talk) 15:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammad: There's page called WP:AADD which says you've to explain and provide solid arguments why this BLP does meet WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
he got war medal from pak army, does he paid for that? - or it is minor than indian film awards? - anyhow delete it as you want, not as policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:89FB:EA86:2045:2220 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An award which is itself is not notable enough, does not makes its recipient notable. --Saqib (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammad: Since you're admin on Urdu Wikipedia, could you please look at the same bio over there as well. The BLP on Urdu WP was heavenly done by IPs. --Saqib (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammad: do you mind expanding on your !vote here? Is your comment about COI in reference to the sourcing? I obviously cannot read Urdu but I'm curious what your thoughts are about some of the above sources that at least facially would seem to be reliable (biggest newspapers in Pakistan, etc). Nole(chat·edits) 04:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nolelover: You need to be aware of the behaviour of this IP - attempting to impersonate an admin. --Saqib (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note for administrators: none of the delete votes executes Wikipedia rules since that article 3 time has passed the notability, there are now 31 most reliable sources that are cited in the article, which nominators removed that, claiming the article is not notable. It is a totally illegitimate move of nominators. All delete votes should be considered as just voting without defining rules and reading sources, not as consensus as policies. I do not think, admins are blind, they are here to enforce policies, not personal motives of anyone else. I do not know the subject as you do not know. Since third deletion, fortuna, explained as, this and Mar4d as this, it was edited also as talk page archieve by Lady and Drmies two admins as well. Further more - Overzealous deletion - Myths and facts about deletion as Myth: AfD is a vote. More "keeps" means it'll be kept, and more "deletes" means it'll be deleted.Fact: The numbers of keeps and deletes do not decide the outcome. Entries that are simply votes are dismissed. The comments that reference policies, guidelines, and essays and state why they call for inclusion or exclusion are actually those that will determine the outcome.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked to see this. I've never interacted with MistyGraceWhite, Orientls, Saqib and Störm - my contribution to any article started by Hammad does not pass under meat puppetry, because I had done this at his request on my talk page. Have a look at Special:MobileDiff/955745807, I do not find any article of his where I've contributed besides this. It definitely isn't meat puppetry. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You all just victimized the article that passes GNG and Notability, whereas, I glanced articles which you created most of those entirely fail GNG as this and professor of rules User:Störm similarly enjoying the project to create such kinds of articles trivial mentioned sources that completely fail GNG and come here to preach others the meaning of GNG - the article you blindly voted to delete, has been edited by the most experienced editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the vociferous protests from the disruptive IP above; based on the investigations done by others and a look at what "sources" I can understand (those is English), there is no doubt that this is WP:SELFPROMOTION... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 02:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not ask that you registered on 9 May 2020, and you jumped on this article to vote for delete , because of self-promoting, amazing. 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 9 May, a whole day before this AfD was even created, afaics (also, I've been on WP before, but obviously that doesn't require me disclosing my IP, especially not to you). You're convincing no one. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:44, 17 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 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) 03:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The article's sources are not independent of her. A Google search of her doesn't bring up in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. The award she is a recipient of is not notable. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 14:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — won a non-notable award “Azaria 360” , falls short of GNG, doesn’t satisfy ANYBIO & doesn’t satisfy any criterion from NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the award is not at the level to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 12 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) 03:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From a state like Kerala having only 20 parliament seats, political parties put forth only their notable leaders. Faisal is a young leader who contested to National Parliament from Malappuram against P.K Kunhalikutty representing CPI(M). That particular seat was never won by any party other than IUML. That doesn't make the important and closest opposition leader irrelevant.
He is the only leader who have narrow downed the Margin for CPI(M) by the closest figures. He is therefore a relevant regional leader.
Further he was state office bearer of the largest youth organization in Kerala- DYFI.
He is currently an elected representative in Malappuram District Panchayath aswell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashique2020 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ashique2020 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Panchayat councils are not an WP:NPOL-passing office. Nothing below the level of the state legislature confers automatic inclusion rights in Wikipedia — even mayors only get in the door if they're really well-sourced, and are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist, let alone county or panchayat councillors. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, and losing by a narrower margin than somebody else lost by is not in and of itself evidence that this losing candidate is more special than that losing candidate. The article is not actually stating or reliably sourcing any significant evidence that he could be considered a "major local political figure" under NPOL #2 despite failing to pass NPOL #1: that criterion is meant primarily to cover mayors, not unsuccessful candidates, and even if you wanted to claim notability for serving on a panchayat council, that's still not a matter of just saying he's a panchayat councillor — it would be a matter of writing and reliably sourcing genuinely substantive content about his impact as a panchayat councillor. So outside the candidacy itself, there's nothing else here that establishes that he has preexisting notability for other reasons, and nothing that would satisfy the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician. Bearcat has given a very good assessment of why this person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify please help me to put this article back in draft section for further development of the article. (Ashique2020 (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, Non notable politician--Irshadpp (talk) 09:20, 17 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.
This article has been tagged with "no sources" for over 10 years and I have been unable to find any reliable sources myself. Significantly this purportedly Dutch game has no sources even on Dutch Wikipedia. If any can be found I would be the first to support its retention. In their absence, however, I regret I must propose its deletion. Bermicourt (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple reliable sources exist. Wonder if it is a hoax or someone's invented game. -- GreenC 01:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since posting this I have found a number of internet sites with the rules of this game, factoring out those that are based on the Dutch Wikipedia article. One is a dictionary entry for Bonken as a card game on the website of the respected Meertens Institute. So am satisfied that the article should remain for now, subject to those references being added. I am therefore happy to withdraw my AfD.Bermicourt (talk) 13:04, 11 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. Consensus that it does not satisfy our standards of notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable business, seemingly an offshoot of the Early Music Shop. I see no indication that this meets WP:NCORP – a few mentions on Gbooks, three mentions on Scholar, and four hits on JSTOR, all to advertisements in Early Music magazine. I can find no in-depth coverage of the company. A large part of the existing article is copied from, and deals only with, the Early Music Shop. A redirect to that page has twice been attempted (once by me), and reverted both times by the same Spanish IP SPA. NB: according to unreferenced material in the page, the business moved its manufacturing to Toledo in 2004. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Early Music Shop is not a company. It is the name of a number of shops around the globe (coincident in the name but independent business and owners). Among them, it is a non-registered brand used intermittently since 1968 by the company J. Woods and Sons Ltd. (Company number 00079392 in England and Wales).
In mid-1999, J. Wood and Sons Ltd. was split in two. The main part consisting in all the workshops and manufacturing facilities, designs, copyrights, etc. were bought by its director Jonathan Askey. As a factory, the ‘Early Music Shop’ was not the most appropriate name to continue with and so, Jonathan renamed and established the business as the Renaissance Workshop Company Ltd. (Company number 03784109 in England and Wales).
The rest of the company, consisting only in a very small number of musical instruments in stock at that moment, and the name of the company in bankruptcy (J. Wood and Sons Ltd.) was sold to a “retailer of electrical household appliances and radio and television goods”: Geo. A. Williams & Son (Holdings) Ltd. (Company number 01346761). After years, in which almost nothing was sold, J. Wood and Sons Ltd. (again, only the name and the small stock) was transferred in 2007 to another holding: the Music Sales Group Ltd. (registered in Jersey), being the immediate controlling party Music in Print Ltd. (company number 01250515 in England and Wales). In 2008, J Wood & Sons Ltd definitively ceased trading but The Music Sales Group recovered the name ‘Early Music Shop’ for two completely new shops, one in Saltaire, and another one in London. Both shops marketing third-party replicas of musical instruments.
In August 2018, Chris Butler, the Head of Publishing and Rights for the Music Sales Group, announced his personal acquisition of the dormant company J Wood & Sons Ltd in order to continue operating the Saltaire shop, naturally with the name ‘Early Music Shop’.
By that time, the only significant change in the Renaissance Workshop Company Ltd. was the move to Toledo (Spain) of the main workshop in 2004, keeping the headquarters in UK and the commercial network around the globe. Renaissance Workshop Company's core business is manufacturing and wholesale, so doesn’t advertise in mass media and its name is not as well known as that of a retailer.
The Renaissance Workshop Company Ltd. has kept producing the same range of musical instruments since the first workshop was set up in 1968 and has changing owners and directors only once since then. At the beginning it operated with the brand name of The Early Music Shop, and from 1999 with its full new name Renaissance Workshop Company or RWC.
In summary:
J Wood & Sons Ltd. used the name ‘Early Music Shop’ to market their own instruments and third-party products.
Due to financial issues, in 1999 all the assets of J Wood & Sons Ltd. were sold to its director and the name of the business was changed to The Renaissance Workshop Company Ltd without ever leaving its original activity.
The Renaissance Workshop Company Ltd. is the natural heir and continuation of J Wood & Sons L::td.
The name ‘Early Music Shop’ continued to be used as a promotional brand by several business trading in historical instruments, but the Renaissance Workshop Company did not because it is more of a factory than a store.
In 2018, the ‘dormant’ company J Wood & Sons Ltd. has been resurrected and sold to a new owner in order to have a legal frame to manage a shop in Saltaire who was called ‘Early Music Shop’ (as some others).
In my opinion, almost nobody knows the dealer J Wood & Sons Ltd. and some know the manufacturer Renaissance Workshop Company Ltd. The commercial name ‘Early Music Shop’ is better known because it is about fifty, and there are a number of shops around the world with that name. We are the ones that used it first time.
Is that a reason to allow The Early Music Shop brand to have its entry in Wikipedia (promoted as if it were a company or only the Saltaire shop) and to prevent The Renaissance Workshop Company Ltd. from having its own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.79.75 (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
81.34.79.75 See WP:WAX; the fact that The Early Music Shop has an article doesn't have a huge amount of bearing on whether this article should exist. The question is whether this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines; indeed, as the OP said, the RWC doesn't seem to have any coverage in third-party reliable sources (and I can't find any either). I appreciate that there's some lineage from Wood's in Bradford, and there might be a case made that Wood's is notable, but notability is not inherited, so the fact that that company might be allowed an article doesn't automatically mean this one should.
(As it happens, the business operating the Saltaire/London shop does seem to have had that significant coverage in third-party sources; the article is under the common name of the company, which is the brand it operates. I'm sure it's a generic enough brand name that other people have operated under it around the world, but that's also not really a relevant factor here.)
Incidentally, I hope I'm not making any incorrect assumptions here, but from your intricate knowledge of the company structure it sounds as if you may have some connection to the company; if so, see WP:PSCOI. In short, you really need to declare that connection, if one exists. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP and per my comments above in reply to the IP poster. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Draftify: there are now some sources on the article and its talk page, which do seem to talk about the company (though several are offline so I can't check easily). I'm not sure they're going to get it over the threshold of WP:GNG before this AfD closes but there is an IP editor actively working on the article at the moment; perhaps the best compromise is to allow them to keep working on the article in draftspace, and hopefully it will eventually be ready to move back into mainspace. (If it's a binary keep/delete choice, at this point I'd rather it be kept, without prejudice against a further AfD if the changes being made don't show it meets WP:GNG.) YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thank you. I understand your interests.
Mazca and DVdm are determined to maintain an old version and to prevent the improvement of the page content.
And accuse me of vandalism!
If you don't like having an article about The Renaissance Workshop Company, please delete it. I can't be every day for years trying to convince you all. There are many other things in life that are more important than trying to understand your intricate policies.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.79.75 (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, doesn't seem to be notable enough to have an article. PadgriffinGriffin Noises 13:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you don't like having an article about The Renaissance Workshop Company, please delete it. I can't be every day for years trying to convince you all. There are many other things in life that are more important than trying to understand your intricate policies. And nobody needs to have Wikipedia as a reference to get any information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.79.75 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just FYI, an IP (not the same one, but the same block, and apparently the same individual) has been editing the article pretty heavily; from a quick glance they've added at least one reference. Don't know if it's enough to save the article from deletion but thought I should mention, in the interests of fairness. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 19:28, 17 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 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) 03:26, 18 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) 03:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable YouTuber playback singer. Article dePRODed, possibly by the creator. Sources are to IMDB, YouTube, file sharing sites and passing mentions. Does not pass WP:CREATIVE. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article was declined at AFC on 22 October 2019, 7 December 2019 and 4 May 2020, it has not improved nor has the subject become more notable since then Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:39, 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.
Subject is a non notable actor & doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR either. I should also say that subject has won a non notable award. Subject also lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe there are sufficient roles for WP:NACTOR. There is also significant coverage, although the main issue is whether the sources are reliable. While there are many Times of India articles online, which are not necessarily reliable, there are also some other sources from The Hindu and Deccan Chronicle—two sources are already provided in the article—so I think WP:GNG is met, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of notable credits, at least, and enough coverage (I read Deccan and the Hindu; Hindu is good, Deccan is okay-ish) that we should err on the side of keeping, considering there are the TOI, and very likely other Hindi and Malayalam language sources to supplement with. Usedtobecool☎️ 14:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe there are sufficient roles for WP:NACTOR as at least in the Malayalam language film industry. Abstrakt (talk) 17:48, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus that this term lacks a guideline or policy based reason to exist and satisfies at least one deletion reason. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Brown" is not a racial or ethnic group as this article suggests. South Asians and Middle Easterners/North Africans are not related. Not to mention that Middle Easterners/North Africans tend to have lighter skin. There is no scientific basis for the creation of this article and the term is not recognised by the Canadian census. We already have articles about South Asian Canadians and Middle Eastern Canadians. To merge information from both articles into this article as if they are a united racial group is incorrect and misleading. A source on the page explicitly states that Latin Americans are generally considered to be more "brown" than Middle Easterners, yet there appears to be no information on Canadians with Latin heritage. Some of the information included in this article should be transferred to the Brown (racial classification)Brown identity article. Sapah3 (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: Following further comments published by other users, I have amended my proposal and propose the deletion of the article and the moving of any valuable information to the newly created "Brown identity" article where discussion on other "brown" groups can also be included such as Latin Americans, Pacific Islanders and Southeast Asians (especially Filipinos and other Austronesian-speakers who have a history of using the term). (Sapah3 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Keep the article doesn't need a scientific basis because race isn't a science, the article seems to be about the experience of brown people in canada (which can be different then that of a unique immigrant group from one country or origin). additionally, the article provides good references to the experiences of some canadains who identify as 'brown' (last paragraph book or article "being brown". Epluribusunumyall (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epluribusunumyall: The article has been set up in the nature of an ethnic group (e.g. South Asian Canadians) with the use of an infobox, total number of people among other things. The article suggests "brown Canadians" are a united ethnic group who come from the same cultural and ethnic origin and that is not the case. South Asians and Middle Easterners/North Africans are genetically and culturally quite different from each other, I hope you are aware of that. Not to mention the fact that the article makes no mention of other "brown" groups such as Latin Americans despite the fact that there is an entry in the article that says "brown" in Canada tends to refer mostly to South Asians and Latin Americans with Middle Easterners often being marginalised within the definition of "brown". Parts of the article include information that make no mention of "brown" (e.g. "19th century" section). The rest of the article is merely a collection of sources that use the word "brown" that have been placed into this article as if they refer to an ethnic group under the misnomer "Brown Canadians". That's why I believe whatever useful information from the page should be transferred to the Brown (racial classification) article in a new section that talks about "brown identification" rather than keeping an article that is misleading. (Sapah3 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The debate here seems to be whether or not "Brown Canadians" are considered to be a unique identity or ethnic group. However the issue here shouldn't whether or not "Brown Canadians" are a separate ethnic group; that's subjective and open to debate. The issue here is whether or not "Brown Canadians" is a commonly used term worthy of an encyclopedia article. The notability of the subject doesn't necessarily mean that anyone here endorses that Brown Canadians are a separate & distinct ethnic group to the detriment of South Asians or Indians just like how our article on Indigenous peoples in Canada doesn't mean that we endorse the idea that "Native Canadians" are a separate identity over Inuit or First Nations. I personally do not believe Asian Canadians is a unified ethnic group, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on the topic especially considering that the term is widely used and discussed. First of all, we need to reflect the terminology that reliable secondary sources use even if we perceive that terminology to be incorrect, which is why the article on Latino Americans is called that instead of Latinx Americans. Secondly, it's appropriate to have articles on ideas or terms if they're notable, regardless of whether or not the ideas or terms are "correct". For example, we have an article on Color terminology for race even though it's universally agreed upon that "yellow people" is both an offensive term and not a cohesive ethnic group. For this reason I disagree with the nominator on their rationale for deletion, as it's based around their own opinions on race/ethnicity and not the notability of the term at hand or whether it's used in reliable sources.
However, while I do disagree with the nominator's reasoning, I don't believe the article should be kept in its current state. "Brown Canadians" are not described as an ethnic group by reliable sources. Many of the sources use "brown" as an adjective in conjunction with "black" to make a blanket statement covering all visible minorities in Canada. Almost none of the sources in the article describe "Brown Canadians" to be a distinct ethnic group instead of just using the term as an adjective for skin colour. Additionally, the Canadian census does not consider "Brown Canadians" to be an ethnic group either, so the entire "demography" section is original research created by adding separate ethnic group totals together. While some authors do advocate a "brown identity", that appears to be in reference to their skin colour and not their ethnic group. Many of the sources that cover the identity in detail though in the "academic research" are university theses and not actual academic papers. Naming the article "Brown Canadians" is misleading as it implies that "Brown Canadians" is common terminology in the sense of being an ethnic group like "Black Canadians", and not just an adjective which some people identify with. For this reason I support merging the article to brown identity or moving to brown identity in Canada. Additionally the article should be rewritten to follow Canadian English if it is kept. Chess(talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 19:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move (per above): I agree with the nominator that this page is incorrectly presenting "Brown Canadians" as if it's a united demographic, but that can be solved by tidying up the article: removing the infobox and demographics sections (which are bordering on WP:OR regardless) and the WP:SYNTHy stuff in the prose. But the concept and discussion of "Brown Canadians" is well-sourced as used in both the news media and academia. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Preposterous article where the editors have come up with their own original research, where there is no academic source of Arabic-speaking referring to themselves as "Brown". Absolutely ridiculous POV and OR. George Al-Shami (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:"Brown Canadian" is too broad of a term to warrant an article about people with "brown" skin in Canada. Not all South Asians, Middle Easterners and North Africans have brown skin. Many South Asians actually have lighter skin. For example, Samragyee RL Shah's mother may be perceived as "brown" because of her typical South Asian features, I'm sure nobody is going to call Samragyee RL Shah, a Nepali actress, "brown" because she has more East Asian-type features which many Nepalis have. I know that the infobox has been deleted but I'm just going to say that using the total amount of South Asians to come up with an obviously incorrect number of "brown Canadians" is incorrect, not everybody included in that number has "brown" skin. I know that somebody has made changes to the page bur this also applies to Middle Easterners/West Asians. Most Middle Easterners have light skin and in the US and across Latin America, Middle Easterners are classified as "white", pass as white and receive benefits for looking "white" in countries like Brazil. I've heard of many stories of "white" Middle Eastern people in North America (US and Canada) who don't experience the type of discrimination that other ethnic minorities face simply because they are "white passing". Rami Malek, is North African yet he can pass as "white" so can Mohamed Hadid, nobody is going to think anything of them based on appearance alone. The total number of Middle Eastern and North African included in that article is incorrect because not everybody has brown skin or even identifies as "brown". Sharing a similar skin tone does not mean your experiences are the same because they're not, none of these groups are related to each other. We all know that a brown-skinned Nepali woman or a brown skinned Mexican woman is not going to face the same type of experience that an olive-skinned Syrian woman wearing a hijab would experience. Please delete it. Not that my opinion matters but the whole concept of "brown" is so far fetched to me because where I live no one uses that term. It's a quintessentially North American thing and it's weird in my opinion because "brown" can mean so many things. I don't understand when people who don't even have brown skin use it to refer to people with darker skin, like why are you using that term when all dark skinned people aren't the same? It makes no sense. (2001:8003:4E46:D000:F159:66DB:3606:FBCF (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
DeleteWP:SYNTH, WP:OR; many of the studies cited do not use the term brown Canadians, but specific ethnic groups; those that do say Canadians with brown skin. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Brown Canadians" in all the sources I looked at seems to be given in opposition to "white Canadians" i.e "is the treatment of someone the same if they are white too if they are brown?" This article also spends a lot of time talking about Malawi Canadians for some reason despite there not being any evidence at all of even a small community in Canada (and going by the article they would be Black Canadians not brown?) The evidence of anyone identifying under this term is one book by a non-notable author, and I would be willing to bet s/he would identify as an Indian Canadian before identifying as a "brown" Canadian. This article appears to be a history of racism in Canada, which does have a place on Wikipedia, but not under an ethnic group that exists solely in the authors head. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While as a Canadian I can certainly attest that "brown" has been getting some use here in recent years as a self-descriptor for people with darker skin tones, it's not a unified group that's been collectively analyzed for brownness per se: it simply encompasses everybody with a skin tone in the brown family, regardless of whether their brown skin tone comes from African, Middle Eastern, South Asian or even Latino roots — and, as the article briefly explains, there have also been some less successful attempts to rope indigenous Canadians into the label too. So there's nothing that can really be said about this without synthesizing: this isn't an article about a defined or unified group, it's an article about a word that's still highly subjective as to who it even does or doesn't apply to. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH to create a unified ethnic group that doesn't exist, not enough reliable sources talk directly about the subject. MohamedTalk 21:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memelord0 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete. This is a made-up identity, as most probably a racist one. Nobody self-identifies as a Brown Canadian, and probably nobody would use this term either to describe any person or group. As explained above by other editors, this article goes against a set of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:LABEL or WP:POINT. Place Clichy (talk) 23:31, 15 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.
This course is well established in a large metropolitan area, and the former head pro was a US Open champion. I think the course is noteworthy enough to warrant an entry.
Keep has some notability of it's own involving the us open Epluribusunumyall (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local interest only. Notability is not inherited, so the fact that the pro did something special is no reason to keep the article. Nigej (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 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.
Delete - no detailed coverage from any reliable source Spiderone 10:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mundane, unremarkable church by all analysis. I don’t see why this deserves its own article. Dronebogus (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(With regret) Delete -- An unremarkable local church, thus NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 16 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. I don't see any justification for a third relist given what appears to be a delete consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No claim to any notability (see WP:PEOPLE). No have page on Russian Wikipedia, deleted before (reason: fake news). Sources in article look as fake news (specially created for make fake notability of person). Possible PR/promo: created from account whose create only this page and protect this page after long time. Кронас (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not demonstrated. asnac (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:54, 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.
Not notable group without significant coverage on non-primary sources. Article believed to be written by a paid editor and/or someone with a COI. Signvisas (let's talk!) 16:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. NavjotSR (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I removed a bunch of promotional content from the page. Cannot find any significant independent coverage, but there is a good target: Savannah River Site, where it's already mentioned. buidhe 00:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:52, 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.
Comment:I rewrote the article. The rewrite contains more sources than the five sources I listed here.
A December 2018 report published by Sootoo Institute found that there were 38.8 million downloads of Keep between July and September, making it "the most downloaded fitness app in China". China Global Television Network (CGTN) said in 2020 that "Keep, a major Chinese fitness app, may be the 'winner' during this pandemic". CGTN noted that Keep had numerous downloads during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per 1) sources presented later in the discussion, and 2) the article was rewritten and significantly expanded on 4 May 2020.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just noticed this, keep per additional sources and article improvement, probably should not have been a relist given unchallenged WP:THREE sources.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is unfortunate that Wikipedia is being forced to advertise banal items such as mobile "apps". The information in sources is either trivial or routine. Coverage is required to go beyond number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, and so on. Fails CORPDEPTH. This includes POV testimony from a customer here or there.
And then there is the big story recounted by the owner. He found exercise effective so he and some others developed a mobile app. So what? This also is not considered significant coverage - it is POV testimony by the founder. According to one of the December 2017 sources there were over one thousand (1000) exercise apps [25] - probably only in China - which then excludes exercise apps available in other countries.
I'm thinking by now (May 2020) there are probably several thousand in China alone. In this rewritten Wikipedia article, in the History section, the first two paragraphs appear to be written as a commercial for the company, the last two paragraphs is routine business information aimed at the business sector - which is frowned upon in WP:CORPDEPTH. This article now has a chronic case of WP:REFBOMB.
This company has quite the PR machine behind it, which is how it has managed to have so much trivial information, as well as routine information written about it. This Wikipedia article is probably part of that PR campaign. There are no controversies that have generated significant coverage in the press, no major changes in leadership, no coverage of employee drama, and so on. Number of employees being laid off is not significant coverage. We're not a platform for advertising WP:NOTADVERTISING. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I changed my ivote to keep. There seems to be a tremendous amount of coverage pertaining to this app. And as Cunard pointed out it is one of the top three exercise apps in China. It seems with everything combined this passes the threshold for notability. I still don't like covering this topic on Wikipedia, but maybe that's another discussion for some other day. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From this 2019 article in China Daily Hong Kong Edition: "According to a Sootoo Research Institute report in June, Keep is one of the top three fitness apps in China. The other two apps, Joyrun and Codoon, are focused on tracking people's running performance. In another report released in December by Sootoo, Keep was the most downloaded fitness app in China with 38.8 million downloads from July to September."
Being "one of the top three fitness apps in China" and then "the most downloaded fitness app in China" strongly contributes to notability.
Here are two Chinese sources I found today and have added to the article:
The article notes that by 2019, Keep had made over one billion sales in sporting goods and ranked fourth in the sporting goods category on the online retail website Tmall behind the Decathlon Group, Lululemon Athletica, and Yijian Running Machine. Tmall is a major Chinese online retail website that has an Alexa Traffic Rank of three behind Google and YouTube.
That Keep is a top seller in the sporting goods category on Tmall strongly contributes to notability.
杨雪梅 (2019-11-04). "裁员背后，Keep过冬：健身生意最本质需求是什么？" [Behind the layoffs, Keep is going through winter: What are the most essential needs of the fitness business?] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. Archived from the original on 2020-05-11. Retrieved 2020-05-11.
The article notes (from Google Translate):
Extended content
Not long ago, Keep running wildly became the focus of everyone's attention due to the layoffs. Keep official response is normal staff optimization. But in fact, this layoff may not be normal for Keep.
Some people think that this is due to Keep expanding too fast, commercialization is not successful enough, strategic mistakes, or the market environment, but in fact, for products like Keep with 200 million users and 40 million monthly users, whether it is commercialization It is still expansion, and perhaps we must return to the most basic level of user needs to discuss.
...
From the perspective of user needs, not being professional and failing to become a system is one of Keep ’s biggest problems.
However, on the other hand, when facing more novice users, Keep is faced with the problem of how to guide users to get used to it.
...
Keep's embarrassment is obvious: it is difficult for novice users to persevere; users with basic training have more professional needs after advanced, but they can't really meet them.
...
If we say that horizontal expansion is to find more possibilities for commercialization, perhaps it is the deeper cultivation of content and user experience in the vertical direction that Keep needs to overcome.
The article provides extensive analysis of Keep in explaining the deep problems it needs to overcome. This sentence is a good summary of this in-depth article: "Keep's embarrassment is obvious: it is difficult for novice users to persevere; users with basic training have more professional needs after advanced, but they can't really meet them."
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.
This location shows no sign of being an unincorporated community and appears to be a mountain summit. –dlthewave☎ 04:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reason to regard this location as notable and I suspect the name is local and informal at best, or even non-existent. The only references that I can find online ultimately come back to the site which is the sole reference in the article (USGS) - this refers to its source as a 1993 brochure(?) that I cannot find. If you enter 38.1888079, -120.3632522 into the Chrome search bar, the mini-map does show the name Sunset Point (though the main Google map doesn't name it). Possibly Google got the name from somewhere else, or possibly from the same USGS source. asnac (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a known problem with articles based solely on WP:GNIS data. Google Maps also uses GNIS with no apparent fact checking, and if you search for "Sunset Point, CA" you'll even find a description of the "unincorporated community" lifted straight from our very own Wikipedia article! –dlthewave☎ 13:07, 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.
Delete per nom. Definitely not notable for basketball. Seems like a vanity article or COI. Rikster2 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a vanity page. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable basketball player. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 14:03, 13 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.
GNG fail. The article is largely sourced to a personal memoir. I can't find evidence of the artist's work, nor reviews. Not to be confused with Bill Hudson (1944), an artist from Baltimore. Someone made the claim on the talk page that this Hudson is innovative for burning his paintings in 2012, but John Baldessari did that in the 1970s. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He received minor news coverage for burning his paintings, but little else. I looked up the seemingly impressive journal reference (On The "Immediacy" of Art) on JSTOR, but the article doesn't mention the artist. Curiocurio (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there isn't significant coverage. The JSTOR article is about someone else.--Theredproject (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources with significant coverage. Almost all references in the article refer to Bill Hudson's memoir, a primary source. Therefore we can neither verify GNG or NARTIST.FriDaInformation (talk) 17:14, 11 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 cited reference is the only work I can find that mentions the place, and since I can't read the work in question I cannot verify what it has to say. But an entry in a history of place names cannot be enough on its own to justify an article. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear on topo maps, not even a sliver of official recognition or notability. –dlthewave☎ 16:52, 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.
Delete Found a few passing mentions of the church camp in newspapers, but nothing that would meet GNG. Clearly a camp and not a community. –dlthewave☎ 16:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More false information without notability. Reywas92Talk 19:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspapers.com has trival references to '"Peaceful Pines" camp', which are not sufficient for WP:GEOLAND#2 Cxbrx (talk) 14:57, 11 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.
Doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements for websites. Found two sources, one from Vulture [26] which is actually about one of the website's founders, and only mentions the site in a tangential way. The Daily Dot produced a decent writeup, but more is needed to demonstrate a notability pass. For what it's worth, the most recent Alexa ranking figure in the article ranks it below 32,000. Hog Farm (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tolkien fandom#Online fandom, where it is already has a bit of coverage. The sources currently in the article do not really make the case for notability - the one independent news source does not even mention the site by name. I also concur with Hog Farm's analysis of the two sources they found during their WP:BEFORE. However, while I do agree that the coverage is not enough to sustain an independent article, I think it is enough that the coverage of the site in the corresponding section in the article on the fandom could be expanded, and have this article redirect there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above. It's well-known in Tolkien and movie fandom circles but hardly needs its own article. Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge not a notable article in of itself, but has a few mentions in reliable sources, and a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 23:31, 14 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. Regardless of the nominator, independent editors have reached consensus that this is not notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable article, most probably a COI editor trying to game the system with 10 edits and go. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References are valueless, no demonstrated notability by credible references. — billinghurstsDrewth 06:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 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.
This has been declined from draft space three times, and now created in main-space as an apparent end-run around AfC. The reason to delete is basically the reasons stated in the draft declines: poor sourcing (YouTube, links to a map site, a reference to another wikipedia article, etc), and in general, no indication this meets WP:GNG. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears obviously notable, so I can see how newish editor(s) could get frustrated with statements that "in general, no indication this meets WP:GNG" (in this AFD nomination) and bland boilerplate denials at AFC that "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article", etc. It is estimated to be 700 years old, its photos show pretty obvious age/elaborateness/importance, it is subject of an annual three-day festival that gets mention in reputable source(s), etc. Seems like there is an editorial process failure going on, a combination of failure to communicate and, yes, newish editor(s) not having all the ability or willingness to comply with referencing standards that other wikipedia editors are trying to insist upon. I dunno, how about acknowledging that it really does meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, as a starter. Is there some way to enlist help of experienced editors on Sri Lanka topics? Some way to really correspond with the author(s)? Otherwise I don't know how the AFC type editors should proceed, but bringing the failure of process to AFD doesn't seem great to me. --Doncram (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I agree that this is likely notable, but the current article is a mess and doesn't belong in mainspace. I'd be happy with moving this back to draft space, where it can continue to be developed into a proper encyclopedia article with solid sources. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the problems here, which occurs in articles about many parts of the world but particularly in those about South Asia, is that article creators insist in including every possible honorific in the title rather than just stick to what is actually the name. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article obviously needs work, but the topic is clearly notable. AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 13 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.
Actually Sorensen's Resort. I have found a couple of news stories about it (e.g. [27]) but I would characterize them as travel writing; while well-known in the area, it has nowhere near the notability of a place like the Izaak Walton Inn. In any case a new article would have to be written under the correct title; the only accurate thing in this one is the coordinates. Mangoe (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I think travel writing could lend itself to notability if viewed contextually - for instance, Sorenson's Resort got a full page in the LA Times travel section in 2003, and if there are several of those types of articles in major newspapers around the country, combined with local news of the resort's comings and goings that wasn't written promotionally I'd probably support a keep - it's clear this is not an unincorporated community. I'm fine with a delete without prejudice for this particular article against anyone who wants to write a neutral article on the resort, without taking any stance on the resort's notability. SportingFlyerT·C 04:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a resort (really just a set of cabins), not a community. Could possibly squeak past GNG but I agree that it's best to delete with no prejudice against rewriting. –dlthewave☎ 04:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm going to see if I can rescue this. I've been working on the related Hope Valley article and dredged up a lot of stuff about Sorensens in the process. I should be able to get to it in the next 2 or 3 days. If kept, it should be moved to Sorensen's Resort. CJK09 (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a recommendation, you may want to start the article at Draft:Sorensen's Resort instead of using this flawed article as a baseline, as it may be notable for being a resort, but it's not in any shape or form a community. It'd be great if you would work on it, but that would save the problem of needing to vote delete on an article that needs to be deleted (for being wrongly identified as a community) as an article that should be kept (for being a notable resort) is developed in the same space. This can always be closed as a delete, no prejudice against redirect to the new article. SportingFlyerT·C 02:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rescued article draft should be ready this evening. CJK09 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Mangoe, Dlthewave, and SportingFlyer: I've written a much improved article - see Draft:Sorensen's Resort. I have struck out my earlier vote. I now vote to Keep, by moving the draft into mainspace at Sorensen's Resort, and redirectingSorensens, California to that page. The resort has received plenty of significant coverage, including from publications as far away as Los Angeles as well as a number of other non-local publishers. Furthermore, as indicated in the Placerville Mountain Democrat article cited in my draft, the couple who owned the resort for almost four decades until retiring last year were instrumental in conserving the Hope Valley area and protecting it from attempts at development. I haven't added that to the article yet, but that's another source of notability in addition to the travel coverage, and I will be adding it soon. CJK09 (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thanks for writing the article! SportingFlyerT·C 00:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I'll change my !vote. –dlthewave☎ 01:53, 17 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.
These are, quite literally, farms that have been mislabeled as "populated places" by GNIS and transcribed as "unincorporated communities" by Wikipedia editors. No sign of a settlement or anything else notable at these locations. –dlthewave☎ 01:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete all obviously misidentified and no claim to notability as farms made. Mangoe (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be "populated" but are essentially farms which doe not have automatic notability. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 01:19, 11 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.
routine news item, BIO:ONEEVENT. The first woman pilot in the Nigerian Air Force (Blessing Liman) might possibly be notable, but going beyond this into various specialities is getting indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but if anyone wishes, the names of the first few female pilots can also be added, with the references, to Nigerian Air Force.Buckshot06(talk) 04:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keepi have gone through this article and checked information on Nigerian women who are flying in the Nigerian Air Force. while (Blessing Liman) is the first female pilot in Nigerian Air Force, she does not fly a fighter aircraft. I found this from the explanation of the spokesman of Nigerian Air Force Air Commodore Ibikunle Daramola in reference No 11 in the article. I think that what will be notable in this circumstance, being an air force, are officers that fly fighter aircraft and not officers that fly any aircraft because there are other women who are pilots in Nigeria but flying commercial aircraft. Tolulope is said to be the first to fly a fighter helicopter in Nigerian Air Force. I therefore think that Kafayat Sanni being the first to fly a fighter jet and Tolulope Arotile being the first to fly a fighter military helicopter are more notable than Blessing Liman. Consequently, I propose that these articles should not be deleted. --Obihoja (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first female helicopter pilot in an air force is certainly notable. I don't think there would be any question of keeping her if she served in the air forces of the UK, USA, Canada, etc. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not first female helicopter pilot in the NAF, "first female combat helicopter pilot" and no I don't see that there are equivalent pages for that for UK, USA or Canada. Mztourist (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources seem to say she was the first female helicopter pilot, but even if she was the first combat helicopter pilot she'd be notable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Lack of an article at the moment (if there is such a lack; see Nicky Smith (RAF officer) for instance) doesn't equate to lack of an article ever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are conflicting, some say she is the first female helicopter pilot, others (including the NAF) state that she is the first female combat helicopter pilot. Nicky Smith (RAF officer) was the first female RAF helicopter pilot and the first female to command an RAF squadron, while neither alone satisfies WP:SOLDIER the combination arguably meets WP:GNG. Pages for "First female combat helicopter pilot" don't exist for the UK, US or Canada and nor should they unless they acheive something more notable Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time to end this every increasing numbers of first x to do y. The amounts of y are already getting towards the ludicrous, the amounts of potentail first xs we have seen are also way too large. If I get myself elected to the Detroit Board of Police comissioners can I get an article on being both the first white man with a black wife and first member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints elected to that board, or are only some types of first x approved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JPL. Being the first X to do Y only confers notability if a sufficient amount of reliable sources write about the situation, over a period of time (ie, the coverage persists past the level of being a news item). It doesn't confer notability in and of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 18 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.
Not notable. Nothing on the internet about this company, which is defunct (if it existed) Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find some information about the company, but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG / WP:NCORP. I don't know why the nominator thought it might not have existed. MarkZusab (talk) 16:14, 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.
Done [24]— Hammad (Talk!) 00:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
