Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 May	12 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ampretur[edit]

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

Not notable; no reliable sources Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 23:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 23:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in a search of the organization's full Spanish name (Asociación Mexicana de Prensa Turística) I found no significant coverage, only inclusion in lists of travel-industry trade organizations. Fails the GNG. CJK09 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and was created in 2010 by a WP:SPA, who admitted to being part of this organization. Time to uproot this promotional relic. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:30, 20 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. Also salted as repeatedly recreated. BD2412 T 03:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kabat[edit]

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

Previously deleted newly recreated article for non-notable mayor with just basically a CV. PROD removed by creator, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. La Crosse isn't big enough for him to meet SNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a genuinely substantive and well-referenced article about a mayor of La Crosse WI could potentially be kept, that's not what this article is: this basically just résumés his career background and says almost nothing whatsoever about his political impact in the mayor's chair, but mayoral notability depends much more on the latter than the former. As for the six footnotes, five are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the only one that actually represents media coverage about him is from a local radio station in La Crosse, which means it isn't enough to singlehandedly get him over WP:GNG all by itself as the only piece of media coverage in play. For him to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there would have to be a lot more substance, and a lot better sourcing, than this. And for the record, every single other person in Category:Mayors of La Crosse, Wisconsin has some other notability claim over and above having been mayor of La Crosse per se, such as going on to serve in the state legislature — so the fact that some of them have articles is not in and of itself a reason to exempt Kabat from having to clear our notability standards for mayors the normal way. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 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 Speedied G7. (non-admin closure) Java Hurricane 03:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Clarke (actress)[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Appears to have only ever appeared in one film, and not in a notable role. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, one role, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - apologies for creating this. Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn, so can this be G7d? Java Hurricane 12:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, based on the above vote, I have requested G7 deletion. Java Hurricane 14:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 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. This is without prejudice to an editor creating a redirect to List of Family Affairs characters, which does not require consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Richardson[edit]

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

Non notable actor. The vast majority of his appearances are uncredited, and all other roles appear minor. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror. This page has existed for 12 years, that is scary. It is this sort of letting no qualitry articles last that is moving us very quickly towards having 1 million articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Delete or Redirect: Apart from the subject's 26-episode stint in Family Affairs, I can't see any other roles that would go towards WP:NACTOR. I am also struggling to find sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Perhaps a "redirect" to List of Family Affairs characters might work, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Family Affairs characters as his only prominent role, does not pass WP:NACTOR at this stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd advocate the redirect, but Richardson's character isn't mentioned at all in his own article or the proposed redirects. It's a completely context-less redirect. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @John Pack Lambert. That the word "uncredited" appears 35 times for individual roles is as clear a failure of WP:NACTOR as you can get. Was created in 2008 as the only ever edit of a WP:SPA. Nothing worth redirecting, and I would add, given the enormous number of uncredited roles and lack of any sources substantiating those career claims, this article seems to be a WP:BLP violation. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Byess[edit]

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

This appears to be an autobiography – the creator has no edit to any other page – and to suffer from most of the problems we are used to seeing in such pages. I can't see that this person is notable by our standards: he's conducted some light opera, some apparently minor regional orchestras, the interval music at a football match, but I see no indication of the major achievements that would justify our having a page about him. Nor do I see any substantial coverage of his work: he gets about ten mentions on Scholar, about thirteen on GBooks, and one on JSTOR. None that I can see have any in-depth coverage of his work, his abilities or his achievements – the best I've come up with is "Steven Byess keeps the opera moving along nicely, but every so often the tempo drops for a measure or two in an odd place". That's not enough to build an article on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to end all autobiographies now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:32, 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. While the first nomination did not reach a consensus there is a consensus here that it lacks notability and the content is not suitable for merging. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anterior fornix erogenous zone[edit]

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

No reliable sources are cited to support any of the content in this article. Reads like an infomercial for a Malaysian sex researcher. Every citation is directly or indirectly from this single source. For example, scientific claims about human anatomy attributed to a pdf version of presentation slides extolling the author as a recipient of an award from a known Who's Who scam publisher. causa sui (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. causa sui (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Erogenous_zone#Female. There is some modicum of properly cited research here, but it doesn't need it's own entire article, perhaps instead an additional paragraph in the aforementioned section of Erogenous zone. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, the article's problem tags, and per WP:FRINGE - there is nothing worth saving in this article because none of it meets WP:MEDRS (which of course includes sexual health). Crossroads ^-talk- 05:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tagged for a decade, fails WP:FRINGE, violates WP:MEDRS. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments on the article's talk page. For example, in 2012, I commented, "It's time for this article to be nominated for deletion again. Like I stated in an edit summary, 'How this article even survived its AfD is beyond me.' It's a concept that isn't supported by much of any evidence, if any at all, and, unlike the G-spot, which has more evidence supporting it than this, it hasn't been notably studied by scholars." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:06, 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.

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Woelfel[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general notability guidelines - sources are not independent. I've found some additional sources as well, but those that discuss the subject in depth are are mostly blogs, etc. - not reliable sources. Article was denied at AFC, but author immediately moved it to mainspace despite this. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I already put this up for PROD for the same reasons as this nominator, but it was declined. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage by independent sources, fails GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the living people category is still growing at about 1,000 a week is a sign we need to do something about all these new articles on non-notable people. That is net growth, so absolute growth of the living people categiry is even bigger since deaths and deletions take some articles away, as well as edits when unrecorded deaths from years ago are discovered.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information in the article can be traced back to his podcast with Creative Rebels or information on Skillshare’s website (not a blog). He is one of the most influential photographers in today’s world, up there with Chase Jarvis and Scott Kelby. Abobeck11 (talk) 18:47, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Coates[edit]

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

I tried to clean this up but major COI and notability issues made this impossible. removing portfolio like would strip 95% of the content from this page - it really seems more like a portfolio being used by the subject, lack of real citations and difficulty of finding new ones, clear not notable Ed6767 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. If he is really important to the rise of blogging, then we need sources that actually demonstrate that, not just unsourced claims of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG claims are unsourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Lean[edit]

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

Not-notable street performer who doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG. Since tagging this article for notability last year I ~~found~~ have become aware of the claimed "national news" coverage that the subject's entire claim to notability seemed to be based upon. It is, effectively, this single photocall image in the Irish Times. Which, frankly, seems to amount to the type of light-news "photocall" that adorns Irish papers everyday. Even, as the case was here, if the subject of a PR-photo was also afforded a short write up in the Irish Times or Irish Independent, this doesn't meet the project's notability criteria. Even WP:BLP1E seems some stretch away. A further search of the two Irish newspapers of record (same Irish Times and Irish Independent) returns just three results (two of which cover this one appearance/BLP1E/photocall). In any event, while I could go on, a broader search for further news, academic or related coverage returns nothing material. I do not see how subject meets our WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines (either the guidelines we have now, or those we had when this article was created in 2005). Guliolopez (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article I've cleaned up in the past, leaving only the pertinent info and the one reliable (?) source that had been added... as you say not multiple and reliable enough to show notablity. Previously there were other source links, which became dead and only referred to the man's own web site. In essence, the article amounts to only: Owen Lean is a magician and street magic entertainer. In 2004 he was selected to perform at the Singapore River Buskers Festival. Where he is mentioned elsewhere on the web it looks like sources, seemingly social media and corporate promo, just copy-pasted his own fluff and pics. Just doesn't cut it I think. Acabashi (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable street performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 07:05, 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. MER-C 18:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Pleasant Hill, California earthquake[edit]

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

Minor earthquake with no impact or lasting effect, fails WP:EVENT to quote "A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable", insufficiently notable to be included in the list of earthquakes in California, let alone as a standalone article. Mikenorton (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. userdude 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. userdude 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable per nom. Didn't even scare my cat enough to hide under the bed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 68,000 people reported a 4.5 earthquake in 24 hours. That amount of people is rare to see when reporting an earthquake. Normally in California, under 10,000 reports is normal. {Here is a 4.5 earthquake that happened yesterday in California. Only 4.3k reports in 24 hours. (Earthquake.gov)} It was also felt in many cities. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here and write news story on Wikinews as a replacement. Wikiproject Earthquakes's intention is not to create an earthquake catalog. The institutions do that much better than us. We create readable articles on significant events. Please see WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 00:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how a minor earthquake that did not cause any casualities or property damage can meet WP:NEVENT. According to the user reports, it lasted just seconds. SD0001 (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a Californian, by our standards of earthquakes (we have a lot of them here), I remember this one as a minor earthquake I slept through (I live just a few blocks from the epicenter,) with no property damage or fatalities. Anyways, it does not meet WP:EVENT. RedRiver660 (talk) 18:18, 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. There is a consensus that the sources presented do not demonstrate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Burns (producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I have some sympathy here: the subject has been involved as producer for several key albums in the thrash metal genre, and it may well be that more coverage of him exists in print versions of hard rock/metal magazines. But right now, the only real source in this article is the Guitar World article, and much of it is Burns himself talking about the albums he's produced. The Classic Rock article mentions him once in passing as the album's producer, and the Rolling Stone article doesn't mention him at all. A search doesn't turn up anything much better online (most of it talks about the 1960s folk singer of the same name)... there's a few mentions in books, but again, passing mentions as the producer of an album, no real biographical detail [1], [2]. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - There's also an LA Weekly article. Metal: The Definitive Guide called him a "leading thrash knob-twiddler." Agree with Richard3120 that a lot may be in 1980s and '90s print material. Caro7200 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that LA Weekly article doesn't really go beyond "he produced this album", sadly. Richard3120 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same article states: "Burns engineered the first Suicidal Tendencies album, and he also produced Possessed’s Seven Churches, Death’s Scream Bloody Gore and many other metal and punk masterpieces. Burns would later call Peace Sells the best album he’d ever produced, and said he’d never worked with anyone as driven as Mustaine. 'Randy was a nice guy, fun to work with,' Mustaine says. 'He lent a punk edge to the production.'"

Burns is also talked about in the Flaming Lips book. Caro7200 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I linked the Flaming Lips book above. It just seems a list of "he produced this album, and this album, and this one" so far... maybe other editors will feel that's enough to be notable, I don't know. I'd like to see something more about him and not his production credits, though. Richard3120 (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you did, sorry. I'm guessing he's written about in the Dave Mustaine and David Ellefson autobiographies, although I don't have digital access to them. There is another brief mention in the Los Angeles Times, which describes him as someone with the ability to "influence" the creative decisions of other creative people. Caro7200 (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is talked about in both of David Ellefson's books (which is an accepted citation ALL over Wikipedia for Megadeth, and Peace Sells related articles) ^[1], Another instance of that quote from Megadeth.com ^[2] Dave Mustaine's book, the Top 500 Heavy Metal albums of all time by Martin Popoff ^[3], Plenty of other articles such as these ^[4], another about the making of SCREAM BLOODY GORE from DECIBEL, which discusses his work with both DEATH and POSSESSED^[5]. There are tons of sources. There is also no questionable or subjective biographical material in this article. Purely discussion of his body of work, directly attributed to the industry-standard sources included, of which there are many more, which is 100% relevant to scholarly research on the topic. Guitar World is a leading authority print publication for over 30 years, and yes, his entire body of work is mostly defined within that one article, which is about the GREATEST METAL PRODUCERS OF ALL TIME, and, suggesting, if not verifying, that he produced some of the most iconic and influential Metal recordings of all time. So no, I did not seek out multiple sources to confirm basically that he produced the records he did, that is fairly common knowledge.

Here is also a 1989 article from the LA TIMES ^[6] "Listen to Excel, and you’ll hear the influence of thrash producer Randy Burns (Megadeth, Nuclear Assault). He produced both “Split Image” and Excel’s second album, “The Joke’s on You,” to be released April 21." And another from LA WEEKLY 1986: THE YEAR THRASH METAL EXPLODED, THANKS TO THREE NOW-CLASSIC ALBUMS ^[7] You say the citations, "only mention in passing he produced the album". Yes, and the WIKIPEDIA article created doesn't really go beyond "he produced that album", aside for a few specific details about the recordings, that are all specifically cited, and are all in line with the citations. He is a record producer, who retired in 1991. Most articles and mentions WILL just be "he produced that album". It doesn't change the fact that he did, or make it any less relevant. That said, the relevance of a record producer, is IN their BODY OF WORK.

So i'm not clear if you're saying that the citations are not enough to support the fact that he produced the records discussed in the article, which intentionally contains no uncited biographical material, or that somehow the content makes the article irrelevant. Either way, in my opinion, and based on my understanding, there is absolutely no reason for this page to be suggested for deletion, and I feel it actually fully goes against guidelines for recommending deletion. Suggesting an article for deletion, based on your personal assessment that a celebrated, genre-defining record producer, who produced over 60 records, at least 1/3 of which are considered among the greatest and most influential albums of all time, across multiple genres of music, including Peace Sells But Who's Buying, considered to be, overall, one of the most influential albums of all time, is not notable, seems a bit of a stretch to me. Especially when literally every line in the article is cited with a direct citation to a mainstream publication. If you know the influence within the Metal canon of Peace Sells, or the first Suicidal Tendencies album, or Seven Churches and Scream Bloody Gore, all recognized as defining moments in Metal history, you understand the importance of Randy Burns. I could question the relevance of thousands of entries on Wikipedia, if I do not have the knowledge or understanding of what makes that article, or individual, relevant.

If you'd like to suggest more citations, I can exhaustively cite 50 instances confirming he produced the records that the article says he does. But as 80% of the pages I look at (even for other less notable, but comparable, producers) have zero citations, paragraph after paragraph of unsubstantiated or fully uncited claims or suggestions, yet they remain fully intact, I didn't feel it was necessary to confirm over and over with citations what is fairly common knowledge among followers of the genre. Also there are plenty of comparable, but less relevant, or successful, producers, with LESS or NO citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Burns_(record_producer) - Literally NO citations, except two website interviews WITH Scott.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Whitaker_(record_producer) - Produced ONE Thrash album. One paragraph, and no citations for anything, other than one link to some random "metal" site.

Maybe the energy would be better spent suggesting ways to improve the page, or improving those pages, or if there is going to be a standard, it should probably be enforced universally. If this page is deleted, these should certainly be deleted.--Allisterfiend666 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Allisterfiend666 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

References

^ "MY LIFE WITH DETH". GOOGLE BOOKS. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "SCORPION Q & A". Megadeth.com. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "The Top 500 Heavy Metal Albums of All time". Google Books. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "JEFF BECERRA Puts An End To Debate Over Who Was The First Death Metal Band: DEATH Or POSSESSED". Blabbermouth. Blabbermouth. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Scream Bloody Gore: The Choosing Death Interview Outtakes". Decibel Magazine. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "Metal or Punk? Not Even Headbangers Know". LA TIMES. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
^ "1986: THE YEAR THRASH METAL EXPLODED, THANKS TO THREE NOW-CLASSIC ALBUMS". LA WEEKLY. Retrieved 11 May 2020.

Hi Allister, thanks for replying. Firstly, the fact that there are other unsourced articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on this discussion – that argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and is more an argument for the deletion of those articles than keeping this one. Secondly, if those albums are important and influential (and I totally agree that Peace Sells... fits this description) does not mean that the producer is necessarily important or influential... a person doesn't get to be automatically notable just by association (WP:INHERITED), you have to show that they are individually notable. I don't doubt that he produced all the records in the list – that can easily be confirmed by looking at the credits of the record sleeves. I'm asking for citations that state that Burns is influential. For example, the Blabbermouth article isn't very useful because again it's just a statement that he produced an album, but in fairness you and Caro7200 have some up with a couple of sources that do hint that he is recognised as notable. I was trying to suggest improvements to this page – I don't have access to any material at the moment that would allow me to improve it, so if you have books, magazines or newspaper articles that would do so, by all means add them. Richard3120 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks Richard. And I appreciate the discussion. But, with all due respect, you clearly don't understand the importance and impact of the rest of his body of work beyond the mainstream of Peace Sells (And I don't even think you understand the full impact of that), POSSESSED SEVEN CHURCHES and DEATH'S SCREAM BLOODY GORE, which are universally acknowledged as the 2 FIRST Death Metal releases, were defined by the sound of Randy Burns (literally BOOKS have been written about this - CHOOSE DEATH by Albert Mudrian), or the first Suicidal Tendencies Record, not to mention Nuclear Assault, Kreator, The Flaming Lips, Dark Angel, and the list goes on. And that's why it was brought up as two separate topics, to clarify whether you were suggesting deletion for a lack of citations, or the content not being "notable". My understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, is people who are well versed in their individual areas of expertise, collaborating to make an inclusive, accurate reference work. I'm sure you are a wonderful, knowledgeable editor, but clearly, if you don't understand the influence and importance of the Randy Burns catalog, his impact on that catalog, and that catalog's impact on both individual genres, and music, and even pop culture, as a whole, I don't see where you deem yourself enough of an authority on the Metal Genre, or that catalog, to be judge, jury, or executioner, on a topic of this nature.

And when it is comparable producers in the SAME genre of music, I feel like it is absolutely relevant to the discussion, as there is clearly a standard set by the community, and the page I created met and exceeded those standards, both in notability, content, and quality and level of citation. If those producers are fit to be on wikipedia for their influence on the genre, which the community has clearly already deemed worthy, and Randy is clearly more influential within an essentially identical sphere of influence, it is absolutely a relevant topic to the discussion. Allisterfiend666 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG per trivial mentions. The records and acts may be notable, but being a participant on said notable elements does not innately convey notability. If there's a huge impact of these albums, that's great, but that doesn't speak to Burns' importance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:GNG. That stuff he touched in some way has some notability does not make him notable. The coverage of him as an individual is almost non-existent, demonstrating a complete lack of notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the consensus is that producers are run of the mill, and absent very clear notability with significant coverage, they are not automatically included per WP:NBAND. The consensus does not seem likely to change. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 20 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 per WP:GEOLAND and the discussion below. If the article needs copy-editing or other changes as the AfD author suggests, I suggest a topical application of be bold and fix it. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Lake (Anchorage, Alaska)[edit]

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

Another spectacular fail on the part of AFC for passing this off into article space without discernment. This article was created by a new account whose only edits are to this article or to promote links to this article. The article as written exists solely to introduce and promote citation spam to a story published in The Alaska Landmine, a blog!!!, and to serve as a venue for advocacy of the story's assertions of the right of the public to access the lake. Not only is the Landmine a blog, its publisher is a past election opponent of an incumbent state senator who lives on the lake, is running for reelection this year and is the subject of a BLP article on Wikipedia. In other words, red flags all around. This is an artificial lake which has existed for over 60 years, is home to numerous prominent members of this community, yet I'm expected to believe by what I'm reading that the only coverage it's received in reliable sources during that 60+ years is one small series published by a blog within the past six months and its supporting documentation? Please. Barring any sincere effort to try again, anything which can be said about the lake can fit comfortably into a section of Campbell Creek (Alaska) instead of pretending the two are islands unto themselves. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears notable via WP:GEOLAND through a quick search, the issues described are editing issues and not notability issues. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] SportingFlyer T·C 19:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Campbell Creek (Alaska). Initially I thought for sure this would be a delete, but after reading the blog and then the newspaper articles, I think this issue is quite interesting in part because of Sturgeon v. Frost (which concerns Alaskan navigable waters) and also that a U.S. Senator is involved in the issue. I agree that origins of the article are suspect and thank RadioKAOS for bringing it up. If I have to choose, between keep or merge, I would go with merge with a complete rewrite. Cxbrx (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable lake in a major city. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the lake stands alone and should not be merged with the creek, though perhaps I could be convinced otherwise. Plenty of news coverage. I deleted the reference to Natasha von Imhof because I don't see that it got picked up anywhere outside the Alaska Landmine. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RadioKAOS, thank you for your comments. Campbell Lake is a notable body of water in the largest city in Alaska. It is the largest lake in Anchorage, Alaska without a Wikipedia page; pages exist for multiple smaller bodies of water in Anchorage including Westchester Lagoon (also an artificial lake), Sand Lake, and Goose Lake. The history and controversy surrounding the lake meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability (particularly relative to other local geographic features). The information contained in the page is verifiable and broadly sourced from the ADN (Alaska's largest newspaper), Alaska Public Media, the Alaska Landmine, local television media, and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media," and the Landmine article that you highlighted provides a thorough, verifiable description of this lake and its importance, which is why it was cited.

As you note, this lake has a 60-year history, and there have been other notable events during that time. Wikipedia has an excellent entry on "recentism" and its effect on the quality of Wikipedia pages. In this case, creating a page that was uncluttered, organized, and readable necessitated the inclusion of notable recent events. However, I agree with your comment. Multiple dam failure and flooding events should be included in the "History" section, for example. The last major flood was August 27-28, 1989 and was covered by multiple articles in the Anchorage Daily News (see “Campbell Lake Residents Struggle to Save their Lake” ADN, August 27, 1989), but these articles are archival and cannot be accessed via hyperlink, which is why they were not included. It also collapsed during the massive 1964 earthquake, which was documented in a citable 1966 report by the US Department of the Interior. Other page improvements should be mentioned in the Talk page.
Regarding merging, Campbell Creek and Campbell Lake are distinct entities, both to the local population and according to USGS. Separate entries exist for less notable local water features including Chester Creek and Westchester Lagoon, neither of which have been flagged for merge.
Yes, a US Senator is involved in the controversy surrounding this lake: This increases its notability and makes the page a poor candidate for deletion. This lake is also relevant due to navigable water rights issues raised during a US Supreme Court Case (Sturgeon vs. Alaska).
I am a new user of Wikipedia (as you noted). There are many prolific editors of Wikipedia, but they all had to start somewhere. Wikipedia does not have separate page guidelines for new users, but it does have a policy encouraging new users to “be bold” because we have potential to better our community and Wikipedia as a whole. I respect and appreciate the time and effort that so many people take to make Wikipedia the resource that it is. Thank you for your efforts to improve this rich and valuable resource, including this page. I do mean that sincerely. We improve this community for everyone when we create and edit with diligence. Openice1856 (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Named natural features are often notable" per WP:GEOLAND. —Hiwilms (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not cleanup, if there is ciation spam, clean it instead of nominating. WP:BEFORE is required for nominating. Named feature, passes GEOLAND easily, covered in multiple RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and Campbell Creek and Campbell Lake are distinct entities.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:47, 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 redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album). Consensus that this is not notable under NSONG or GNG but that redirecting is an appropriate WP:ATD Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Life of Arabia[edit]

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

A non-notable track from David Bowie's 1977 album "Heroes". While it does have a few reliable sources, the information present can easily be added into the album article, which I plan to expand upon one of these days. Other than that it doesn't appear to be notable in its own right. – zmbro _(talk) 19:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be an album only track, and was never a single in its own right, hardly notable enough to have its own page. Seasider91 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album) – no reason why it shouldn't be redirected to its parent album. Richard3120 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason why it should be. Rlendog (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I believe it fails WP:NSONG and isn't notable enough for its own article. But it's a valid search term. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album): Not all songs in the album are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? And even if not all songs in the album are notable, why is this particular song not notable? Rlendog (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - None of the arguments above get to the issue of whether this song meets our notability guidelines or not. From my own bookshelves, Peter Doggett's The Man Who Sold the World, Nicholas Pegg's The Complete David Bowie and David Buckley's The Complete Guide to the Music of David Bowie all have an entry specifically on this song. James Perone's The Words and Music of David Bowie has a good size paragraph analyzing the song. I am sure there are plenty more given that this is a song from more than 40 years ago (and additional references are already in the article) but this is enough to demonstrate notability.Rlendog (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage of the song itself. Meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:NSONGS. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per NSONGS "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." This song meets that. Rlendog (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. the content does not pass WP:NSONGS criteria for an independent article. The information here could be easily contained on the parent album's page. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact that other pages for songs from the album exist is the EXACT REASON WHY THIS ONE SHOULD NOT. Topics do not inherit notability from other related topics. Additionally, articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources. To be honest Joe_the_Lion, Sons of the Silent Age, V-2 Schneider, Sense of Doubt, Moss Garden, Neuköln and The Secret Life of Arabia should all be merged. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the comment that "articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources." If we do not rely on published sources what do we rely on? Rlendog (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Just a generic track that was never a single in its own right, and garnered very little coverage. Was created in 2006 when article standards were far lower. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, with leave to merge if there is a feeling there is enough relevant content. Non-single track without independent notability. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album). Does not meet GNG on its own. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:21, 20 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. It appears there are multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the topic, and therefore GNG is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neuköln[edit]

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

A non-notable track from David Bowie's 1977 album "Heroes". While it does have a few reliable sources, the information present can easily be added into the album article, which I plan to expand upon one of these days. Other than that it doesn't appear to be notable in its own right. – zmbro _(talk) 19:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - "I plan to expand upon one of these days" would seem to be a poor deletion rationale... Caro7200 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Point taken, per all below. Caro7200 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not the rationale. The rationale is it "doesn't appear to be notable in its own right" per WP:NSONGS and the information currently in the article can be moved to the album article. – zmbro _(talk) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album) – there's little to say about this instrumental track on its own, but no reason why it shouldn't be redirected to its parent album. @Caro7200: I think Zmbro was talking about expanding the album article as an aside, not in connection with this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was being a little sarcastic. My personal opinion is that it's not ideal practice to subtract well-referenced, well-viewed information with the intention of adding some of it to a "parent" article at some nebulous future date. Caro7200 (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album): Not all songs in the album are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - None of the arguments above get to the issue of whether this song meets our notability guidelines or not. From my own bookshelves, Peter Doggett's The Man Who Sold the World, Nicholas Pegg's The Complete David Bowie and David Buckley's The Complete Guide to the Music of David Bowie all have an entry specifically on this song. James Perone's The Words and Music of David Bowie has a good size paragraph analyzing the song. I am sure there are plenty more given that this is a song from more than 40 years ago (and additional references are already in the article) but this is enough to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable track. I am persuaded by Rlendog's arguments. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect *Merge and redirect. the content does not pass WP:NSONGS criteria for an independent article. The information here could be easily contained on the parent album's page. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact that other pages for songs from the album exist is the EXACT REASON WHY THIS ONE SHOULD NOT. Topics do not inherit notability from other related topics. Additionally, articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources. To be honest Joe_the_Lion, Sons of the Silent Age, V-2 Schneider, Sense of Doubt, Moss Garden, Neuköln and The Secret Life of Arabia should all be merged. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the comment that "articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources." If we do not rely on published sources what do we rely on? Rlendog (talk) 12:46, 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 redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album). The previous content is available under the redirect if anyone wishes to merge it. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moss Garden[edit]

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

A non-notable track from Bowie's 1977 album "Heroes". It's been a stub for quite some time now, and while there are a few reliable sources, the information present can easily be added to the album article, which I plan to greatly expand one of these days. As it stands, it doesn't appear notable enough to have its own article. – zmbro _(talk) 19:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album) – little to say about this instrumental track, but no reason why it shouldn't be redirected to its parent album. Richard3120 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album): Not all songs in the album are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? And even if not all songs in the album are notable, why is this particular song not notable? Rlendog (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - None of the arguments above get to the issue of whether this song meets our notability guidelines or not. From my own bookshelves, Peter Doggett's The Man Who Sold the World, Nicholas Pegg's The Complete David Bowie and David Buckley's The Complete Guide to the Music of David Bowie all have an entry specifically on this song. James Perone's The Words and Music of David Bowie has a good size paragraph analyzing the song. I am sure there are plenty more given that this is a song from more than 40 years ago (and 2 additional references are already in the article) but this is enough to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. the content does not pass WP:NSONGS criteria for an independent article. The information here could be easily contained on the parent album's page. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact that other pages for songs from the album exist is the EXACT REASON WHY THIS ONE SHOULD NOT. Topics do not inherit notability from other related topics. Additionally, articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources. To be honest Joe_the_Lion, Sons of the Silent Age, V-2 Schneider, Sense of Doubt, Moss Garden, Neuköln and The Secret Life of Arabia should all be merged. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources" mean? If we do not rely on published sources what do we rely on? Rlendog (talk) 12:45, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Muganga[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a writer and public speaker, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for writers or public speakers. Of the 15 footnotes here, seven (basically half) are literally his own writing metaverifying its own existence -- but the key to making a writer notable is not to cite his own books as proof that they exist, it's to cite media coverage about his books as proof that they got independent attention. And of the eight other sources, three are WordPress blogs and one is a piece of user-generated content on Medium.com, none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources -- and one is a site that is refusing to load for me at all, so I'm unable to verify whether it counts as a reliable source or not.
So that leaves us with just three media hits, of which one is a piece of "local guy does stuff" human interest coverage in the local media of the city where he lives, one just briefly mentions his name in the process of not being about him to any non-trivial degree, and one is covering him in the context of winning a minor award that is not an instant free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- so they do not add up to enough coverage to hand him a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to properly demonstrate his notability as a writer through WP:AUTHOR. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, blatant promotion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article. Java Hurricane 12:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:32, 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 keep. Article may need improvement, but meets WP:NMUSIC per discussions in both this AfD and the previous AfD of this same article. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Reilly[edit]

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

Article about a YouTuber who doesn't seem to justify notability besides a few minor EPs. Romartus Imperator (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 2 with a charting EP on a Billboard national chart and also has won a major song writing competition as confirmed by a reliable source - which is a claim to also pass criteria 9 so she deserves a Wikipedia article in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMUSIC as explained above (and in the previous AFD discussion). TJMSmith (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC supported by appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. Java Hurricane 12:39, 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. BD2412 T 03:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nyaman Group[edit]

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

Not notable, just PR material Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically just an ad. ~ HAL 333 19:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company containing independent content. userdude 19:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the UNESCO source doesn't discuss the subject and the Journal des palaces appears to be a paywalled press release. The only source that does discuss the subject is not independent, they are a service provider that lets customers book a stay. Vexations (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find any important coverage. - MA Javadi (talk) 11:59, 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 Speedy deleted A7 and A11.. (non-admin closure) Java Hurricane 12:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iayaz[edit]

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

fail to see how this possibly meets inclusion criteria of a town that is not even "constructed" yet. Praxidicae (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, per above. ~ HAL 333 19:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedily. Article title is the name of the author--the subject is Wapda Town Sheikhupura. Author has already created Draft:Wapda Town Sheikhupura, had it rejected at AfC, then apparently moved it to mainspace anyway where it was G11-speedied. This history of the current version is full of WP:CIR-noncompliant activity--author created in user sandbox, then moved it to mainspace as Iayaz/sandbox. Prax moved it back, after which author immediately moved it to its current title. After the article was tagged for AfD, author tried to move it to its talk page. Author has apparently ignored the advice received from four trips to the AfC Help Desk. (1, 2, 3, 4) Pass the WP:SALT? --Finngall ^talk 21:59, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fluidity (company)[edit]

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

Non notable company that fails WP:NCORP MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it was skimpy before, and I just removed the Forbes contributor blogs and crypto news sites - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirSwap (2nd nomination), which is Fluidity's product - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly-sourced article (a wedding notice?!). No evidence that this particular Fluidity company has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than 2 WP:RS listed. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 05:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources do you regard as sufficient for WP:NCORP? The 1st source is a sentence in an event report, quoting one of the company's principals. The second is a wedding notice mention of the company where someone works and doesn't support the text to which it is attached. The 3rd source is a passing mention of the firm as one of five in an "in addition to" list. This is a mix of routine and passing coverage. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am relisting merely because a claim of reliable sources is recent, and is recently disputed. I would judge consensus as "delete" unless consensus builds around reliable sources that are posited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AllyD ~ HAL 333 19:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage, much less enough to meet NCORP. There might be a place for company profiles of every little blockchain startup somewhere, but Wikipedia ain't it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD and Alpha3031. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 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. MER-C 18:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Leishmaniasis Control Center[edit]

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

Might not meet WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. I could not find any independent coverage of this organisation. -- Computer165 (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There maybe passing mentions but nothing that would meet WP:GNG. Ashishkafle (talk) 04:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pageone.ng[edit]

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

Not a notable website. Ninjaediator (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with nomination - this is entirely non-notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:56, 3 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 18:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~ HAL 333 19:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somewhat promotional article for non-notable website. Java Hurricane 12:45, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infernal Method[edit]

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

No Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any evidence of passing WP:BAND. userdude 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. While Allmusic is a reliable source and I found a Blabbermouth page about the band's dissolution in 2004, I did not find anything else, despite these two being notable sources. When I searched for "Infernal Method band", most of the results were about the album Hex, or Printing in the Infernal Method by Earth. It seems this band has not made it into multiple reliable sources.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all above comments. With very little reliable sources in sight, this article is pretty useless.... Shall we conclude?SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 21:40, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted. Spam and socking all over the place Ged UK 09:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Androidwedakarayo[edit]

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

Seems to be spammy, not notable, and not in English. Very detailed, but doesn't seem to be a helpful or useful article. PabloMartinez (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete completely spammy and utterly devoid of anything resembling coverage from a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by blocked socks Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thimirathenuwara

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Donot delete They have enough sources. Not spammy. All are reliable sources that can be found in Sri Lanka. They have won an award in Google I/O also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenayahewagama (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC) - note: likely sockpuppet of page creator, see SPI[reply]

Oh my god, They are saying that all of us are the same guy/girl? comment added by Shenayahewagama —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donot delete This is a very reliable source, Award-winning best tech comminuty in Sri Lanka. Comment added by Senal Evans - note: likely sockpuppet of page creator, see SPI
Do not delete They are notable, they are not spammy. They provide great service to their country. It is glad to see that they are in Wikipedia, and they deserve to be in here. They writes in their mother language Sinhala. If they are not in English how can Virakesari in Wikipedia. They are in Tamil. Not in English. Moreover, they have won an award in Google I/O Extended Sri Lanka 2018 as the Tech blogger of the year 2018. All the reliable sources were provided. It should not be deleted. That article got over 130 views within a day. Refer to these stats Stats And more over it was written in Neutral point of view, information published in reliable sources, article were not present new theories, ideas, data, or analysis, Its about them, this is an encyclopidia. Then Why should it be deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thimirathenuwara (talk • contribs)

Thimirathenuwara if you're going to keep removing this signature would you please learn to sign your edits? Praxidicae (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

page creator, see SPI Ed6767 (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems more like WP:PROMO or WP:SPAM than anything else. Not enough reliable sources to present an argument for WP:GNG. The actual website is full of broken links, which is pretty suspicious. Perhaps it deserves an article on the Sinhala wikipedia if there is a case to be made regarding notability according to their criteria? AlexEng^(TALK) 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~AlexEng if someone searches about them in English, then how could the Sinhala article going to be helpful? Comment added by Thimira Thenuwara~~

I'm sure I don't know, but I am sure I do not believe they meet notability or verifiability criteria here. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socks talking to each other, very long

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't think so AlexEng Praxidicae Pablomartinez. I saw that there are a lot of people sharing this article on social media and talk about that. They are very impressive in this article. In your point of view, this will not be notable to you, but in other people who have a value about Androidwedakarayo, this is notable to them. Some of you guys are going to decide to delete this article by consideration from your point of view. May be The Verge will not notable to them, TechCrunch will not notable to them but Androidwedakarayo is notable to the. I saw that and I came here to see what is this Androidwedakarayo and read this. Then I realized that this is a good team. Then I search about them and edit this article with information found from reliable sources. You clearly said, "I'm sure I don't know". That means you really know you don't know about this, and you want to delete this article because you think this is spam. but this is not a spam. This is about Androidwedakarayo. This is what they deserve. If you think that these sources are not enough, goto TechRadar and see what are the sources that they have provided. Only Alexa Ranking, Taboola, Similarweb Blog, SimilarWeb.com. Androidwedakarayo have more reliable sources than TechRadar. But, tech radar is not a spam, it is notable without more sources. But Androidwedakarayo is spam, promo, not notable, sources are not reliable. What is the reason for this discrimination? Comment added byShenaya Hewagama

~~Agree with you Shenayahewagama Comment added by Thimira Thenuwara~~

Once I was in schooling, some of us decided to create an article about our school in Wikipedia. Then we create it in very neutralized tone and submit it into Wikipedia. Next day some contributors decide that this should be not in here then they remove it with noticing put this in Sinhala in Sinhala wiki. But I cannot understand all of us are searching on the Internet in English, why we should put that in Sinhala. No one will search for it in Sinhala. If I said to AlexEng or Praxidicae or Pablomartinez to find about my school will they able to find my school with the reliable source? Wikipedia is the one and only encyclopedia that provides reliable information. That's why everyone came here with reliable sources and put articles to share knowledge. But when a Sri Lankan is here, everyone is going to chase them away from here. That's why they are blind at TechRadar. And TechRepublic also like that, lack of reliable sources. Both of them came here with the same nature of Androidwedakarayo. But they can survive in Wikipedia, But not Androidwedakarayo because it is from Sri Lanka. Totally disappointed with these kinds of decisions. Totally fed up. Comment added byShenaya Hewagama

Strong DELETE - creator is going nuts here, page is spammy and most edits are by the page creator, not all all a constructive article and all that, basically the same as the above. 21:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Note I really don't understand who the hell is these fools which are calling Wikipedia editors or whatever. Are they blind? I think there are so many ways to recognize the "Android Wedakarayo" on the internet. This is a community based on Sri Lanka, Mainly focusing on "Sinhala Tech Contents". I suggest let the "android wedakarayo" to do their job in here to create their about page in Wiki. These buggers are a joke Senal Evans

No Senalevans, they cannot create an article about themself in here. It should be done by us, the contributors.

Then why you're struggling here. You can delete it. Can you? This is an open and free platform I guess. You maybe a contributor, Anyone can write an article here, if its good and true It should be on Wikipedia. I think so many people searching about this community in Sri Lanka. Now what is your point making here, and misleading the people who review this by saying "This is a Spam". Be a good kind of Contributor. Not a jealousy and annoying one. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senalevans (talk • contribs) 21:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

note: likely sockpuppet of page creator, see SPI Ed6767 (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT NOTE to other editors - Currenltly ALL THREE "do not delete" responses are very likely made by sockpuppets of the page creator and this should not influence the result. I mean, check out the compare diagram, it is a cut and dry case of sockpuppeting to influence a AfD. Ed6767 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby prove that I'm an individual who made this profile in Nov 2, 2018 and I don't know other people that who have commented here. you guys think that these are a same person when some people get united onbehalf of one article. It is very pathetic to see that these kinds of things in Wikipedia. - Thimirathenuwara

@Thimirathenuwara: Use the SPI for this. Ed6767 (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Where is it? - Thimirathenuwara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thimirathenuwara (talk • contribs) 23:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~ඩිලීට් කරන්න එපෑ හුත්තෝ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuwanprabathd (talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: Struck comments by blocked socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thimirathenuwara AlexEng^(TALK) 23:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the ones you missed. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With that hot mess out of the way, delete per nom and others for being spam/promotional. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Retswerb (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:PROMO / WP:SPAM - concur with nom. Dan arndt (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Purely promotional. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO, and while the closing admin is at it can its sister article Android Wedakarayo be deleted at the same time. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Cotovanu[edit]

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

Non notable painter. No WP:RS to VERIFY GNG or NARTIST. The article was an auto-biography written in 2010 that was flagged for notabilty then but has not been improved. In part because there are no sources to improve it with. All but one link under references are broken or to pages that no longer exist. The one article I could find is a human interest story about him painting: https://adevarul.ro/assets/adevarul.ro/MRImage/2016/10/14/580087f25ab6550cb88c09c8/646x404.jpg Mtheletter (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mtheletter (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mtheletter (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mtheletter (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Mtheletter (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a few sources in a foreign language, which are not particularly impressive when run through Google Translate. For example this looks like a bio reprint. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding enough to substantiate notability for this artist. Netherzone (talk) 14:20, 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.

The result was no consensus. Between the sockpuppetry and the CANVASS'ing I am closing this AfD as procedurally flawed. No prejudice against a renomination where these issues will hopefully not be present. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Rao[edit]

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

Simply put, not a notable person. Article does not meet Wikipedia standards, and my claims made by himself or Ms. Seema Rao are provably false. (Redacted). Please see the talk page on the article for more information regarding these claims/statements. Feel free to tag me in any discussion. BasicsOnly (talk) 16:11, 11 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.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BasicsOnly (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to highlight the deletion reasons above as well as all the reasons listed in This video — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs)

Please see the following Sockpuppet Investigation BasicsOnly (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough references on the talk page. Being 1 of 5 Indians to be conferred with an honorary Rank is notable.Modyyash(talk)
@Modyyash: That is not worth a Wikipedia article, especially when it appears he has gained such due to providing training to Indian Soldiers, while simultaneously lying about his credentials in the martial arts. I would request anyone observing this topic also follow the conversation located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs)

@BasicsOnly:In the light of your statements he was awarded the rank in 2011, and I am guessing he must have been training Indian Soldiers since approx 1990s given the facts from reputed news sources. So the source of lying that you claim as this wikipedia article was not present at all when the individual had been training the Indian soldiers almost 20-25 years back. Your statement doesn't hold in the timeline. Also could you please enlist the proofs of falsehood, a decision can not be based on what appears to an individual, but what the facts are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu231 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modyyash: Mr. Deepak Rao did not need this Wikipedia page to make the many false claims he presented on his website, he has many webpages of his own, and he can also say whatever he wants using his mouth and write whatever he likes using his hands. It doesn't make those statements true, and also does not make him a notable figure. BasicsOnly (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that we should not be doing any analysis regarding fraudulent claims here, and should only be basing decisions on what the sources actually say - even if, as individuals, we might believe them to be wrong. So if he's been awarded something, and that something would make him notable, then the article should be kept - even if we believe the award should not have been made. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: great to see you here! The issue with these articles is that if you remove primary sources and verifiably false information, there's nothing left of substance. They don't pass the notability requirement, or Hoax, Vanity, or Advertisement. BasicsOnly (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be true, I'm just making a general point not specific to this article - I haven't examined the sources here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: please do so! I would love an impartial observer. At the same time, could you please look at the accounts, Edifix, modyyash, Anu231, and ssk1720? I believe them to be paid actors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Also, please see the conversation located at the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs)
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Paid Actors? Has Wikipedia come down to this? He has been accusing and single-mindedly removing all Valid references right from the Indian army to the Bustillo interview. This is not a courtroom. The references on the Indian Army Website, Indian Media are enough to talk about his army achievements. And if you are telling me that being a Brand Ambassador of the Indian Army is not enough to have a Wiki page? Read this: https://www.newswire.com/prof-dr-deepak-rao-conferred-honorary/137708 talk)

@Modyyash: Please sign your posts. You have failed to do so many times during our discussions both here, and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta. And yes, despite the melodramatic flair you insist on adding to the situation, I am quite sure that you (and the other 3 or 4 people that I spoke with on the Deepak Rao page) are at the very least very closely affiliated if not paid. Let's examine why. I will copy and paste several of the messages from there to here for better visibility. BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Messages copied from Talk:Deepak Rao#Vendetta by BasicOnly.. Collapsing for readability. Abecedare (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modyyash: You forgot to sign your post. Interestingly enough, out of your 79 edits on Wikipedia since 2012, 61 of them have to do with Mr. Deepak Rao. I don't think that is a coincidence. Additionally, how kind of you to provide an uncited and unreliable article. Anyone can submit anything they want to that website and claim it as fact. I hardly think that Richard Bustillo commented specifically on Mr. Rao and his family, especially after I saw those technique videos. Additionally, it's convenient for you to say that the Bullshido thread is irrelevent because there are few users commenting, when the users commenting are presenting direct claims from Mr. Deepak Rao himself and his family claiming to be a Harvard doctor, Yale Lawyer, BJJ blackbelt, etc. All fabrications. BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anu231: How great of you to join us. You have had an account on Wikipedia since January 2019. You have 23 Edits in the last 5 months. Of these 23 Edits 19 of them are about Mr. [Deepak Rao]] and his family. The sum total of your other edits is just +840 bytes. I have many edits concerning Mr. Deepak Rao because most of his article is a fabrication. Additionally, I have passed 100 edits, but I suppose you were close enough. I have not doubted Mr. Rao's honorary rank of major in the Indian Army Reserves. It is just not important. As I said before it is hardly noteworthy. There are hundreds if not thousands of legitimate Indian Army Majors in the Regular Army that actually earned the rank from within the Armed Forces as actual military members, and few if any of them have their own Wikipedia page. I have, however, doubted pretty much everything else he has said, as the vast majority of it appears false. What is your connection with Mr. Deepak Rao? I explained the reason for my edits - because his article is full of falsehoods - what is your excuse? BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@103.212.141.59: You forgot to sign your comment. Wikipedia editing is not rocket science. I'm rather decent at picking things up and have had the opportunity to see many experienced editors at work to include Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) and others. I invite any admin with permissions to do so to check my IP and see if I'm connected with any other Wikipedia account. I'm quite sure that they can also tell if someone is using a proxy service, which I am not. I am located over 5000 km away from India and have no vested interest financial or otherwise in Mr. Deepak Rao. However, I have never hidden the fact that I disapprove of the constant mistruths perpetuated by Mr. Deepak Rao, and I have publically disclosed every location in which I commented regarding this situation. My actual end goal is to improve the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu article to Featured Article status, but I can't abide a liar or a charlatan. What I find more curious is the fact that you are posting from IP, have only this one comment as a contribution, Wikipedia geolocate pinpoints you to Mumbai, India, and you seem to be very vigorously advocating on Mr. Deepak Rao's behalf. What is YOUR connection to Mr. Deepak Rao? Which of the other users in this thread are you, or are you yet another paid advocate? BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@103.212.141.59: Also, it is worth pointing out that Wikipedia geolocate puts you 13.2 km away from Mr. Deepak Rao's school, "ACADEMY OF COMBAT & REHAB CLINIC, Shiv Shakti Building Shree Krishna hotel JP Road, near Udipi, Andheri, 400053, India". Do I have the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Rao himself right now, or are you one of his family members? BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edifix: How fantastic to have the third person who creates articles for Mr. Deepak Rao and Mrs. Seema Rao in this thread. Of your 63 edits on Wikipedia since 2013, 59 of them have been related to Mr. Rao and his family. What exactly is your connection with Mr. Deepak Rao? BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And since you want to tag @Boing! said Zebedee: for their eyes on the situation, then I will feel free to do so as well. BasicsOnly (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: Have added Government and reputed news references for WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Requesting you to take another look. Anu231 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't change my view. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other information: I have also found a previous successful Articles for Deletion post regarding a page Mr. Deepak Rao created himself for advertizing purposes in bad faith that also contained votes to delete the pages for Mr. Deepak Rao and Mrs. Seema Rao from several parties. Please see the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Commando_Combat_System#Advanced_Commando_Combat_System,_Prof._Dr._Deepak_Rao_&_Dr._Seema_Rao

As well as another example of bad faith editing regarding the Rao family as well as another historic suggested deletion request for Deepak Rao and Seema Rao:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_commando_combat_system_(2nd_nomination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prof.Dr.Deepak_Rao_%26_Dr._Seema_Rao — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of anything else, the lead image was a falsified digital alteration partially from here. No confidence. —Cryptic 13:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: that's great investigative work! What was altered about it? I didn't notice anything with the image when it was in the article, and it no longer exists. BasicsOnly (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A different photo of the center figure was edited in. (I guess he didn't look happy enough?) —Cryptic 14:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no particular interest in this AfD, but there are some serious WP:CANVASS violations going on on my talk page regarding it, by Anu231 and BasicsOnly. Permalink: [8]. Both editors appear to have done the same thing on several other talk pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: sorry if I bothered you. My understanding of WP:CANVASS was that this would constitute limited posting because Anu231 already requested your input and attempted to bias your opinion towards the subject. In return, I attempted to present the surrounding information regarding the topic. As I said before in the message I wrote to you, "I do not ask you to agree with me, I just want to provide this information for you to view as Anu231 has already addressed you regarding this topic with their version of events." Please let me know if this is a violation of some sort and I won't do it in the future. I'm a rather new editor, so I will enjoy learning from your expertise. BasicsOnly (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many things going on here, including canvassing, possible COI, BLP... It's taken a lot of my time recently. It seems likely that connections of the subject have added non-encyclopedic information to this article and a related one previously deleted. But that's not the question here. The article currently contains adequate claims of notability IMO. If these are false they should be removed, if unsourced they should be either sourced or removed. But I strongly suggest that BasicsOnly should not edit the article. Gutting it would prove nothing. Raise any relevant points on the article talk page. If no claim to notability can be adequately sourced, then PROD the article. Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, how can you ask an article at AFD to be prodded? There are enough arguments for Keep on this page, to automatically invalidate any future notability-based-speedy/prod deletion proposals. With all due respect, this is not an A7 debate. AFD doesn't go by adequate claims of notability and postpone the evaluation of claims and sources for later. It should discuss the available sources and decide whether they support any of the SNGs or the GNG, now.Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence to which you are objecting reads If no claim to notability can be adequately sourced, then PROD the article. (emphasis as above) Is that correct? As you have now demonstrated that there are well-sourced claims to notability (thank you, I thought that would turn out to be the case), I really don't see the problem. Perhaps I should have bolded the If. As a logician, it seemed to me that bolding the then more than adequately highlighted the conditional nature of the PROD suggestion, but I seem to have been wrong in that assumption. Andrewa (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that your conditional is universally inaccurate (it would be accurate in other contexts), but AFD is where the buck stops. What it gives, is a community decision, which can not be overridden except by another. An article kept by an AFD does not qualify for CSD or PROD (WP:PRODNOM). Moreover, PROD is for uncontroversial deletions (Modyyash and Anu231 have made comments above suggesting they object to deletion which remain valid unless it is established they were evading a block/ban at the time of making them). PROD is also a weak deletion; anyone, including the page author can DEPROD, or if they miss it, refund the article at any future time with a technical request.
Personally speaking, though "if...then" is acceptable and perhaps even necessary in how most of the computer programming is currently done, the "then" is redundant in natural language. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point regarding PRODNOM, and it would have been good for you to have linked to that before... I was indeed forgetting those details and have now done some needed revision! It still seems to me that it would have been be good to allow a PROD (or even a technical deletion) if this AfD had reached a consensus that this was appropriate and had foreshadowed it, but you're quite right, the rules don't allow for this, so another AfD would have been best. Academic now. As to your remarks on logic... As you yourself say, English doesn't work quite the way that computer languages do. I still think my construction was perfectly clear and reasonable, but you're right, it failed to communicate. I'll try to do better. Andrewa (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wikipedia is not in the business of Righting great wrongs, perceived or real. Whatever the affiliations and motivations of editors who have previously edited Rao-related pages, and whatever the extent of Rao's actual contributions/credentials, Wikipedia can only reflected what reliable sources have covered, and the article in its current state is nearly there. I looked at all the sources; most if not all, appear generally reliable. Most, but not all, of the coverage is based on the press-release the Army released of his commissioning as Honorary Major. I have removed multiple such pieces published in reputable press, for being redundant. He meets the coverage requirement of WP:GNG, in my opinion. The achievements, as listed in the aforementioned press release, may even arguably meet WP:ANYBIO #1 and #2. Those who have reservations will just have to wait for the reliable sources to catch up to their version of the Truth. Simply put, there are sources considered generally reliable backing up the claims made in the article; the nom and their arguments have none.
Disclosure: I was asked by BasicsOnly to look at the discussions, after I reverted one of their edits. I was already watching the article and the AFD. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seema Rao. The only concrete claim to notability is the honorary rank granted in the Indian Territorial Army, which did garner some coverage perhaps due to the two A-listers M.S. Dhoni and Abhinav Bindra being given honorary ranks at the same time. Other than that the coverage has been pretty thin, often in apprently self-issued press-releases (note how this PR differs from the Government of India's press-release); city supplement sections on Indian publications, which are often the outlet for non-fact-checked, soft and even paid-content; and, trivial mentions in news articles about other subjects. Once the article is culled of poorly-sourced, redundant and excessively self-serving material (as done recently by Usedtobecool), there is little to nothing that won't inevitably be covered in the related article on Seema Rao, Deepak's wife and collaborator, who is marginally more notable (although that article too needs significant clean-up).

Secondarily, note that the this article/subject have been target of significant on-wiki promotion by a group of SPA's and sock-accounts for more than a decade. The tactics used included image manipulation as pointed out by Cryptic; creating a dedicated site solely to host related images along with a (dubious) free-license and re-creation of numerous related articles, including:

Deepak Rao and Seema Rao currently at AFDs
Unconventional Commando Combat Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Komal Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (related AFD)
Bison System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (related AFD)
Hathapayi: Enter The MMA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Advanced Commando Combat System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (related AFD)
Prof. Dr. Deepak Rao & Dr. Seema Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (related AFD)

There are indications of similar off-wiki information manipulation, which I won't detail since it is unnecessary for this AFD and will raise BLP issues. The main point being that we need to be careful to maintain strict sourcing standards for this topic-area and be on the lookout for promotional/COI editing. Lastly, like many participants here, I too was informed of this AFD by Anu123 and later approached by BasicsOnly (see my talkpage + this BLP warning I issued) but, in my view, the main effect of the canvassing was getting more (uninvolved) eyes on the articles and this AFD rather than bending the discussion or result in any particular direction. Abecedare (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, I do not consider being given an honorary title of Major sufficient for notability. I was thinking more of "inventing a form of combat technique that was adopted by the fifth largest military in the world". Could you analyse the strength of that claim? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool I agree with you that an honorary major title (just like honorary PhDs etc) are indication that someone might be notable, rather than notable by themselves. Furthermore, the honorary rank is in the Indian Territorial Army, which is a non-professional force of part-time volunteers.

As for "inventing a form of combat technique" and "adopted by the fifth largest military in the world": both are pretty amorphous claims because there is no real standard for what qualifies as a 'new combat technique' or 'adoption by Indian army'. And, the "... fifth largest military in the world" verbiage is pure promotional fluff just as was the case with previous versions of the article name-dropping Dhoni, Bindra (including his Olympic Gold medal!) and President Kovind, which you cleared up. Can someone point to the exact source for these specific claims? I recall seeing stuff like that (and, much more hagiographical and dubious claims) in some of the promotional web-bios that are completely untrustworthy but don't recall if it was repeated in any reputable source. Abecedare (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, I have seen multiple pieces saying the couple came up with the new reflex shooting system, but the instagram post from the President of India, the citation to which has now been removed from the article, is the only one I recall, that also says it has benefited the army. Since it's not Donald Trump, I figured it's credible enough. Top result when I tried googling was this from newindianexpress with a "Seema Rao" byline which you'd never guess reading the high praise in third person. Perhaps, you are more closer to the mark with the impossibility of determining if anything at all is independent or secondary with regard to Mr. Rao. Found nothing from the Hindu or the Indian Express. That, I guess, leaves us with the PoI's Instagram. My assumption remains that the post reflects the briefing the office received from whoever recommends the list of awardees, which in turn would have to have come from the Indian Army. Room for error, yes, but also good enough, as far as Wikipedia cares, IMO. If it turns out the PoI was duped, we could always write about that, then. Drmies for one, obviously doesn't share my confidence. So, that leaves you to break the tie. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course when I suggested you analyse the strength of the claim, I was hoping you'd yourself take a shot at trying to find out if there's reliable secondary sources backing it up. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see any reason to accept that Instagram post as a reliable source, no. It doesn't even have a caption. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The account's OP is at the top of the comments—"President Kovind presented Nari Shakti Puraskar 2018 to Dr Seema Rao, the first and only woman commando trainer in India. She has trained over 15,000 soldiers from Indian Army, Navy, Air, Paramilitary Police, NSG, ITBP, SVP, NPA Commando Wing SFF & Para Special forces, free of cost. She along with her husband invented an indigenous method of reflex shooting, which is known as the Rao System of Reflex Fire which has benefitted the Indian Army. She is also a combat shooting instructor, a firefighter, a scuba diver, an HMI medalist in rock climbing, and a Mrs India World pageant finalist." Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in attributing Look Promotional. I correspond with the other writers in the Favour of Deletion of this promotional sheet. I have no individual solicitude or Issue with this couple at all. I have high respect for their hard work as they claim (if proven by them on the ground). BUT, The wiki may not be the right platform to create a promotional profile, Article. The Article miscarries Precedence (notable) and trustworthiness of most utmost of the links stated in the Testimonial segment. I completely agree with the point of view of Sir BasicsOnly and Sir Materialscientist . I am late to Wikipedia but an old soul on the planet of Internet and Internet Etiquettes (Protocols). I concur with my superiors and esteemed advisors (Sir User:BasicsOnly BasicsOnly and Sir User:Materialscientist ). They are senior guides who have designated points to a farthest professional manner. I do click with all genuine concerns and axiom of complete clean up of Promotional Profiles from Wikipedia. Another legitimate solicitude is one of the profiles who is bootlegging all links repeatedly to the answers and yielding the erudition as it is the same person. One of the Raos?. That is not an argument for me at a secluded level but of direction, would be at Professional Front for sure. Let's come in the unrestricted and have a fair consideration in regards to the Testimonials have been claimed in Articles. Let us have a legitimate prospect to comprehend this couple better with the official records. There are a lot of claims/Rumours about the unsaid unwanted charges on them? But as far as the Notability is provided and the Wiki policy is NOT misused and formed, I do not have an Issue, But for the next time. This time I correspond with the Seniours and propose to DeepaMourya (User talk:DeepaMourya) 19:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeepaMourya: Can you please explain which of the other editors you corresponded with and how, and the reference to Materialscientist? Abecedare (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is barely even an allegation of notability (co-authorship of two published books). Drill sergeants are not notable as soldiers, and absent extraordinary deeds, run of the mill. The claim that's he's one of two trainers with this style is bollocks. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 20 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. consensus is GNG is met.... but evidently significant cleanup is needed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seema Rao[edit]

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

Simply put, not a notable person. Article does not meet Wikipedia standards, and my claims made by herself or Mr. Deepak Rao are provably false. A charlatan. Please see the talk page on the article for more information regarding these claims/statements. Feel free to tag me in any discussion. BasicsOnly (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BasicsOnly: Your account on Wikipedia has been singlemindedly with the focus of deleting these pages with unproven allegations and repeated attacks. You’re challenging legit references and pointing to forum threads started or popularised by yourself as proof. Hardly the process to file for deletion. Edifix (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edifix: You're one to talk about singlemindedness. 64 edits on Wikipedia since 2013, 60 of them have been related to Mr. Rao and his family. What exactly is your connection with Mr. Deepak Rao? I advise all viewers of this article to go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta and read the rest of the conversation. I am fairly certain that Edifix, modyyash, and Anu231 are paid actors.

Keep AfD is not cleanup. It might well be there are unverified claims made, which is the point of WP:RS. However, we can verify that she has won the Nari Shakti Puraskar award here and has had significant multiyear media coverage, thus meeting the GNG.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ "The Maa-Beti Wonder Women: Seema and Komal Rao". The Times of India. 8 March 2018.
^ "Meet India's tough woman commando trainer who is also a doctor". gulfnews.com. 15 April 2018.
^ "'अगर आप आगे बढ़ना चाहते हैं तो कोई बाधा मुश्किल नहीं'- 'वंडर वुमेन' Seema Rao | ABP Shakti Samman". www.abplive.com (in Hindi). 7 March 2020.
^ "For shooting out the glass ceiling". The New Indian Express. 17 December 2016.
^ "Bruce Lee's legacy is being abused: Bustillo". The Times of India. 1 January 2012.
^ "India's Only Woman Combat Trainer Has Coached Over 20,000 Soldiers". www.msn.com. 29 March 2019.

Whether this person is an entertainer or something else is not an issue for AfD. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: According to the official Indian Government page concerning that award, it is given to up to 50 women EACH YEAR in India for contributions towards the cause of women and equality in India. Mrs. Seema Rao was awarded for supposedly creating an anti-rape self defense system and for being a female trainer for Indian Soldiers, however I would contend that neither is particularly Wikipedia notable, and moreso her accomplishments only exist because herself and Mr. Deepak Rao have made such audicious claims about their supposed qualifications, yet these qualifications are fabricated. They do not exist. Additionally, are we to allow Wikipedia pages for each of the 50 awardees every year? 500 Wikipedia pages over the last decade just to cover awardees of a political award granted solely to champion the cause of equality? I think that would remarkably short sighted. Additionally, her contributions might have even caused women to be MORE at risk in dangerous sexual assault situations because she does not actually appear to have ANY verifiable martial arts history or background upon which to build a safe and effective self-defense system. Not to mention that all of those news articles are only considered notable BECAUSE she is a woman, not because she is notably good at any specific skill or trade, and all are based on an expressed skill set and background which is entirely fabricated. I just do not understand the rationalle behind allowing Mr. Deepak Rao and Mrs. Seema Rao to use Wikipedia as their personal advertising platform to make money off of people who don't know any better and to put those people at physical risk at the same time. BasicsOnly (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not backed by adequate 3rd party sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Articles in attributing Look Promotional I correspond with the other writers in the Favour of Deletion of this promotional sheet. I have no individual solicitude or Issue with this couple at all. I have high respect for their hard work as they claim (if proven by them on the ground). BUT, The wiki may not be the right platform to create a promotional profile, Article. The Article miscarries Precedence (notable) and trustworthiness of most utmost of the links stated in the Testimonial segment. I completely agree with the point of view of Sir BasicsOnly and Sir Materialscientist . I am late to Wikipedia but an old soul on the planet of Internet and Internet Etiquettes (Protocols). I concur with my superiors and esteemed advisors (Sir BasicsOnly and Sir Materialscientist ). They are senior guides who have designated points to a farthest professional manner. I do click with all genuine concerns and axiom of complete clean up of Promotional Profiles from Wikipedia. Another legitimate solicitude is one of the profiles who is bootlegging all links repeatedly to the answers and yielding the erudition as it is the same person. One of the Raos?. That is not an argument for me at a secluded level but of direction, would be at Professional Front for sure. Let's come in the unrestricted and have a fair consideration in regards to the Testimonials have been claimed in Articles. Let us have a legitimate prospect to comprehend this couple better with the official records. There are a lot of claims/Rumours about the unsaid unwanted charges on them? But as far as the Notability is provided and the Wiki policy is NOT misused and formed, I do not have an Issue, But for the next time. This time I correspond with the Seniours and propose to Delete. User:DeepaMourya

Must Delete as maximum Articles in attributing Look Promotional DeepaMourya (User talk:DeepaMourya) 19:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other information: I have also found a previous successful Articles for Deletion post regarding a page Mr. Deepak Rao created himself for advertizing purposes in bad faith that also contained votes to delete the pages for Mr. Deepak Rao and Mrs. Seema Rao from several parties. Please see the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Commando_Combat_System#Advanced_Commando_Combat_System,_Prof._Dr._Deepak_Rao_&_Dr._Seema_Rao As well as another example of bad faith editing regarding the Rao family as well as another historic suggested deletion request for Deepak Rao and Seema Rao:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_commando_combat_system_(2nd_nomination)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prof.Dr.Deepak_Rao_%26_Dr._Seema_Rao — Preceding unsigned comment added by BasicsOnly (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Winning Nari Shakti Puraskar is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. There seems to sustained coverage meeting WP:GNG as well. AFD is not cleanup. If it's unsalvageably bad, it can just be made into a two sentence stub with what she won and why, the Nari Shakti Award win is well-verified. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly by virtue of winning the Nari Shakti Puraskar and media coverage as a (rare) female combat trainer for the Indian armed forces. For the record, see also my comment at the related Deepak Rao AFD, where I have outlined the considerable promotional SPA/COI editing and sock-puppetry surrounding this subject and the need for maintaining strict sourcing standards for this article. Abecedare (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG fairly comfortably with the sources provided. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could potentially Draftify as well regarding concerns on the promotional tangent. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:18, 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 result was delete. MER-C 18:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voyagers Travel[edit]

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

Not notable; solely marketing uses Wikieditor600 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete spammy PR nonsense and somewaht made up. I meant to do this a while ago when I removed all the garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reference appears to relate to the Australian Voyager Travel Corporation [9] rather than the Equador-based Voyagers Travel. AllyD (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article contains no claim of notability and searches are finding nothing better than routine coverage and personal postings about experiences with the firm. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 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 result was no consensus. While I could relist there has been a fair amount of discussion and there seems to be no real consensus between the keep and delete participants about the quality of sources and so I am closing this now as no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shain Neumeier[edit]

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

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shain_Neumeier for details. Nearly all sources are first person or brief mention, and the few independent sources discuss his views, which are not particularly unusual. Ylevental (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure whether their views (they use they/them pronouns) are unusual or not is material here. I reviewed the sources on the talk page -- in particular three in the second section. The article from The Nation introduces them as "Neumeier, who wrote an extremely important essay on the intersections of reproductive and disability rights for NOS Magazine, identifies as an autistic attorney and activist with ectodermal dysplasia" and then mentions them a total of 10 times, referring to them throughout the article.[10] The other are similar.[11][12]. The Washington Post has similarly turned to them for commentary in such articles.[13] The question for me is whether these three articles -- especially The Nation which characterizes their work as "extremely important" plus the dozen or so other passing mentions turning to them as an authority meets GNG.Theredproject (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are inadequate 3rd party indepent reliable sources covering this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other third-party sources not currently included in the page - see these for example:

American Bar Association features Neumeier extensively. [14]
Massachusetts Bar Association honored them. [15] [16]
Several sources including WGBH Educational Foundation, Masslive, Rewire.News and New England Center for Investigative Reporting all discuss their advocacy work about the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in detail. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] and also discussed and referenced repeatedly in a Punishment & Society article [22]

I edited the page and added some of these sources, and made some other edits to clean it up.

Ysannelo (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source was already included in the original analysis. It is true that there are more sources, but they also have to be reviewed. Additionally, it might be that you have a COI with Shain Neumeier, as you seem to know a lot about where he has been published, even articles from the early 2000s. Ylevental (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will now quickly review most of the additional sources. I would say the honor from the Massachusetts Bar Association [23] is somewhat notable, but doesn't go into specific details as to his achievements. The WGBH piece discusses his views on the Judge Rotenberg Center, where he represents one family that was victims of the JRC's policies [24]. The Punishment & Society article [25] contains only a couple quotes from him. Every other source contains passing mention or was already disputed.

I think that to be really notable, he has to have served a major role in opposing the JRC's policies, or served a significant role in disability activism, and that his work must be covered in multiple sources in depth. Ylevental (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep As a disability rights activist, Shain Neumeier is certainly no less notable than a number of other disability rights activists notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. There ARE more than an adequate number of third-party sources by which they and their work are mentioned, several of which are already cited in the article. Further, I would strongly agree with The Red Project that with respect to notability it matters none whether their views are "unusual." Andrea Parton (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: This individual seems to be notable mainly for his views on the JRC. WP:ONEEVENT states that for an individual to be notable, they need to be really involved in a significant event or involved in more than one event. If the article does stay for now, it really needs to be reduced in size. Ylevental (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources about them and their work. The current content seems very WP:ONEEVENT to me. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline for me - would suggest those recommending keep pick the WP:THREE best sources as currently the article is festooned with cites of varying quality. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Neumeier is covered independently in different outlets for different issues, such as The Nation for reproductive rights advocacy, Rewire for leadership in advocacy against shock treatment at the Judge Rotenberg Center, ABA Journal for legal work, and Rooted in Rights for overall activism. Minutiaman (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Minutiaman: I just checked the Rooted in Rights Source, there are only two sentences about Neumeier [26]. The ABA Journal Source [27] seems to focus more on personal characteristics than discussion of his legal work. Ylevental (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON - virtually every source is primary. That might be acceptable for a person from the First century AD, but not for a WP:BLP. This is the only reliable, secondary source that I can see. For the record, I am also an activist and have have four times as many followers on Twitter as they do. There is zero evidence this person has attracted much notice. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 20 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. Canley (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Uriarte[edit]

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

Since 2008 this biography of a businessman has been sourced mainly to his own website and LinkedIn profile. The only claim of notability is winning an award, but that itself doesn’t seem notable. Does not pass WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing in the article doesn't support a claim of notability. A Google search turned up some mentions, but none of the kinds of reliable and verifiable sourcing that wouls establish notability. Despite a dozen years on Wikipedia, the article is barely integrated / connected to any other articles. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alansohn ~ HAL 333 19:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a LinkedIn mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant promotion. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Alansohn. - Flori4nKT A L K 19:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Rufus: The Fantastic Pet[edit]

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

Reason Reviewed as a part of new article review/curation process. IMO fails wp:notability, both wp:GNGand the SNG. Small scale film does not even exist yet; director's previous one went straight to DVD/streaming. None of actors or director have articles. No indication of notability under the SNG. For GNG the only source is a medium length coverage article in The Oklahoman from the director's home state. I could not find any other sources or even reviews.North8000 (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough secondary coverage to merit an article, a draft would be a fair compromise IF someone plans on working on it. BOVINEBOY2008 19:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. The one local source is just not enough to get over any notability bar. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahajubilee Training College, Mulloorkara[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate notability through the use of independent, secondary sources, as per WP:ORG. It previously contained a copyvio which has since been removed. A earlier PROD was added but removed. Acalycine (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Acalycine (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible Delete -- The author is glocked as an LTA, no further info or it might merit a WP:G5. It probably would have been best deleted the first time around but I see an IP sock removed the CSD tag and then there was copyvio revdel instead, followed by a ton of deletion tag removals with deceptive editsums. I count at least three more socks, the last of which again added G11, G12 content. But for the revision in which the AFD nom was made, it, again, could have been deleted under G11, G12. I don't see why any more editor-time should be wasted on this crap. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:37, 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 result was Move to Death of Olivia Dahl. While there is consensus that Olivia Dahl is not notable in her own right, it is clear that her death was a notable event that had a profound effect on her parents, and particularly on Roald Dahl's literary works. So while the person may not have been notable, the event clearly is. – bradv🍁 03:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Dahl[edit]

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

Daughter who died in childhood. She clearly had a profound affect on Roald Dahl, but she's not independently notable and this content is better served merged into the Roald Dahl article. Also suffers badly from story telling. Idolwyld (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what about these sources on the article? [28] [29] [30] Do you consider them not independent enough from the subject of the article? Acalycine (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no, because it’s still inherited notability. It’s a tragic story, but the notability is the impact on, and later activities of her notable parents. And all the articles talk about it in that context. Idolwyld (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not disputed I think that there are plenty of sources addressing the subject of the child's death and the effect on the Dahl family so why not move it to Death of Olivia Dahl? Philafrenzy (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Move per Philafrenzy's suggestion. Very few or no sources talk about her without focusing on her death. --GRuban (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on Roald Dahl.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move As creator, I did seriously consider her independent notability when creating the article, inspired by James Phipps, who was solely notable for an event as a child. But can see that merge to Death of Olivia Dahl might be more suitable. I feel the inherited argument has slid in recent years with the slew of articles of relations of politicians etc. The article is far too detailed to be merged into Roald Dahl. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but copy some content to Roald Dahl AND Patricia Neal. Most deaths of children of notable people do not get stand-alone articles, nor do the children themselves. While her death at age 7 is heartbreaking, renaming it "the death of" is not quite fitting. Consider that there is no article on Marcella Gruelle, whose death made a more significant effect on her father and then on the world. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While we know that notability cannot be inherited, sometimes it just can be inherited. Consider for example Lavinia Norcross Dickinson who is notable only as the sister of Emily Dickinson (it has survived an AfD). I don't see the point in doing a messy merge here. There is good amount of content here and the sources are all good, merging will only result in loss of information. Moving to Death of Olivia Dahl would also be appropriate. SD0001 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an apples to oranges fallacy. Lavinia Norcross Dickinson did not inherit notability, she made notability for herself and arguably for Emily Dickinson. According to the article, "Lavinia "Vinnie" Dickinson was instrumental in achieving the posthumous publication of her sister's poems after having discovered the forty-odd manuscripts in which Emily had collected her work." Without her, Dickinson would not have the legacy she does today. Plus she's been potrayed in numerous films. The same cannot be said for Olivia Dahl. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that she didn't inherit her sister's fame. In any case, that was not meant to be a concrete comparison. SD0001 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And if moved, the topic then becomes the death of Olivia and its effect on the Dahl family, a notable topic in its own right, and ceases to be a biography of Olivia so the question of inherited notability is irrelevant. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roald Dahl and the death of his daughter from measles is a tragic and well-known story to all those whose read his works. I don't see any gain in deleting the article. Conversely, it would be a loss. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's exactly the point. It's about Roald Dahl, and the impact on the death. The daughter herself is not independently notable. Idolwyld (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct which is why the article should be moved to the notable subject of the death and its effects on the Dahl family, a subject which has been addressed directly and in detail by reliable sources and which is too large to fit in Roald Dahl's article without significant loss of material. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a Dahl wiki site. The only people who would want to read it would be reading up on her parents. People die. They leave heartbroken people behind. Some of those people are writers and other artists. Longfellow's wives. Mark Twain's toddler son. Irving Berlin's wife and child. Olive Higgins Prouty's daughters. Johnny Gruelle's daughter. Even Lorenzo Michael Murphy Odone, whose parents made big strides in treatment when he was diagnosed with ALD, does not have his own article... and their story was the subject of an award-nominated movie. What does the Olivia Dahl article accomplish as a separate article that it wouldn't in the Patricia Neal and Roald Dahl articles? Nothing. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It discusses the subject in one place without constraints of space. It can be summarised in the parent's articles as is the usual practice. The fact that other articles do or don't exist isn't relevant. Wikipedia is full of such anomalies. There is a well established genre of "Death of ..." articles here into which this will fit very well. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources exist, and so the article does. The work of an editor is to knit together the disparate strands of sources into a biography, which I have done. No Swan So Fine (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Move The Roald Dahl article is already long enough without including all of this one, and the Death of Olivia Dahl was a very significant event in his life and his wife's. Just because other stuff exists or does not exist, that is not a strong enough reason not to have an article for Olivia Dahl's death. Edwardx (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the comments above -- indifferent to the rename, or not, Sadads (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really necessary to bold 'per all the comments above' ? that rather impleies they're all keep when they're really not.Idolwyld (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect The subject has no independent notability whatsoever and Wikipedia isn't a memorial, but a redirect to her father or mother's article wouldn't hurt. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The numerous deletion discussions of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy are pertinent here. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- They’re really not. Patrick Kennedy was the son of a serving US office, born while he was in office. That’s a completely different scenario of notability, not least front page reporting on the NYT the next day. The earliest source on Olivia Dahl’s death is 26 years after the fact. This is a facile, almost ghoulish comparison.Idolwyld (talk) 02:51, 21 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 to Innuendo Studios. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Alt-Right Playbook[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:WEBCRIT as apparently pretty much the only reliable source on the whole internet is the CTV News article cited here.

Note that some sources use the phrase "alt-right playbook" without referring to this web series: [31][32] Pudeo (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pudeo (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Pudeo (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, I've found some more on the whole internet: [33], [34], [35]. Also in this book: [36] --Adam Harangozó (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Press is probably an acceptable source (although it is a small publication), but the mentions there are short (it briefly mentions Youtube flagging of the channel by alt-righters). Apparently The Observer is a newspaper run by the international affairs club at Queen's University, and this article has been written in collaboration with an academic blog within the university. It doesn't go into much depth either but states that according to this web series, the alt-right will either create a community or infiltrate one. The third podcast source is clearly not WP:RELIABLE and the book only mentions this series in the reference list by name. --Pudeo (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but suggest creating an article on ~~Ian Danskin~~ Innuendo Studios instead. Sometimes coverage of The Alt-Right Playbook will be under the name of a specific video and not mention the exact phrase "Alt-Right Playbook" e.g. [37]. There's some good coverage of other Danskin videos videos e.g. [38][39][40]. With these three sources and CTV News above, that makes four substantial sources spanning several years and many videos, which I think makes Danskin notable. However, The Alt-Right Playbook in isolation probably isn't, so we should move the page, change its scope and then leave its current title as a redirect. Also, I can't view this source (geoblocked) but it came up from a relevant search: [41]. — Bilorv (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't think notability is there yet but there is a reasonable chance that it might be in the future. I know that a lot of people rate this series very highly. I agree with Bilorv that an article about Danskin might be better than an article about the series as it can cover this and his other work but I'm still not sure that the notability is there for that either, at least not yet. It is borderline. I'd certainly have no objection to it being turned into a draft and brought back in another form if/when the sources are sufficient. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable web series that has gained traction on the internet.ImYourTurboLover (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Ian Danskin and refocus accordingly, per Bilorv. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Innuendo Studios. Danskin does not appear to be notable at all outside of Innuendo Studios. There are several sources that only refer to Innuendo Studios and do not mention Danskin, ie [42], [43], [44]. I also note this Dutch article about "BreadTube" with a section on Innuendo Studios. userdude 19:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. Yes, this is the same topic as I was meaning and you're right, the WP:COMMONNAME would be Innuendo Studios not Ian Danskin. — Bilorv (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that move target. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Innuendo Studios, series does not appear to meet notability requirements but Inneundo Studios / Ian Danskin does. XVDC (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Innuendo Studios per @XVDC and @userdude. That is the only notable subject we are involved with here, not "The Alt-Right Playbook". Newshunter12 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regent Park Neighbourhood Initiative[edit]

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

Delete or merge to Regent Park. The organization lacks sufficient sources for a standalone article but there may be some relevant information for the neighbourhood. User:Namiba 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Organizations are not automatically entitled to have articles just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies they exist — their significance has to be established by outside sources: namely reliable source coverage about them, written by unaffiliated journalists in real media and books, in sufficient depth and volume to get them over WP:ORGDEPTH. But the "referencing" here is entirely to either the organization's own web page about itself, or glancing namechecks of its existence on the still self-published website of the city housing department, with no evidence whatsoever of any media sourcing. A brief mention of this organization might be appropriate in Regent Park's main article if there's anything meaningful to say and source about its role in the community, but a full merger of everything here would be unnecessary undue weight. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 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) 06:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Raza filmmaking[edit]

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

same as the parent company, this isn't notable and lacks any meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ave Fenix Pictures, directly tied in with this. --Closeapple (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability. I was planning on doing an AfD for this a while back. So, I did some research on it and the company. At the time I wasn't able to find any reliable sources to establish notability for either one. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ruby[edit]

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

fails WP:NFILM. The sources are spam/SEO work and PR pieces Praxidicae (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion, provided that they receive guidance from EVP directing them to actual reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arise from Darkness[edit]

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

fails WP:NFILM. The sources are spam/SEO work and PR pieces Praxidicae (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 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) 06:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Fenix Pictures[edit]

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

non notable film company, the sole source that this hinges on for notability, from Chicago Tribune is not only a local piece but an op-ed combined with an interview. There is 0 in depth coverage (also worth noting that this topic has long been a target of a certain paid editing ring) It's three films also don't appear to be notable despite having articles. Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Raza filmmaking, some concept/movement/idea allegedly invented by Ave Fenix Pictures or its participants --Closeapple (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I had actually been planning to do an AfD for this and their La Raza film making "movement." It's nice to see someone else did one for them. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Kumar (youtuber)[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTuber. A search didn't turn up any sources for use. Java Hurricane 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in Afaqs! www.afaqs.com/news/digital/52000_youtube-rewind-top-10-indian-content-creators-and-rising-stars-2017

Delete, yet another YouTuber without notability per WP:GNG or WP:ENT. --bonadea contributions talk 15:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete 0 sources and no claim to notability. Praxidicae (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no notability at all, blatant self-promotion Spiderone 20:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Youtuber. Although I have to admit seeing that this article was not in the living people category I just lost hope that we will not see us reach 1 million articles on living people this year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Non-notable YouTuber who fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and looks written by the subject themselves. cookie monster (2020) 755 16:52, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Clark & Peacock[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are own web-sites and web-site of over-arching group to which it belongs. Significant evidence of past COI editing but currently no evidence of anything notable. Searches yield the usual promotional and review sites plus linkedin etc. but nothing that speaks to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 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) 06:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essex TV[edit]

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

this doesn't appear to be notable at all - it's masquerading as a tv station but in reality it's just a badly run "media" site, operated similarly to several black hat SEO sites. There is 0 coverage in reliable sources (and really, even unreliable). Even their attempts at PR are terrible Praxidicae (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a fancy wrapper for a little-viewed Vimeo account (and their social accounts are just RSS feeds of Essex-based media without any actual interaction). Nate • (chatter) 17:18, 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) 06:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skybuilt Power[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. All I can find is press releases, no SIGCOV Rogermx (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV Mztourist (talk) 13:30, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Lorraine[edit]

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

non notable local beauty pageant. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail GNG? IZ041 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article can be fixed with a few edits, thus is not a candidate for AfD. See WP:BEFORE & WP:ATD. IZ041 (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:IZ041 if it can be fixed, then show us some significant, indepth coverage, in reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV needs to be met. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite there is significant coverage in reliable sources. ^[1] IZ041 (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Société. Miss Bourgogne sauve Miss Lorraine". www.republicain-lorrain.fr (in French). Retrieved 2020-05-18.

@User:IZ041 No this is not a reliable source giving significant coverage. This does not even discuss the pageant, it is just a news story, nothing more. Passing mentions like this are dime a dozen on the internet. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite did you even read the source? The pageant is discussed within the source. The source is reliable and there is significant coverage revolving around the source. This is more then just a "trivial mention" that is a "dime a dozen on the internet". The response you gave made it clear you didn't read the source. In the source they are discussing the pageant and whether or not it will take place, how will it take place if it does take place, whether or not this pageant will send a delegate to the next Miss France pageant and the changes to the pageant after the director resigned. Next time read the source before jumping to conclusions and making it obvious that your doing just that. IZ041 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:IZ041 I have read the source. It does not discuss anything indepth. You should read WP:SIGCOV guideline before commenting on an AFD. You are repeating yourself again and again without giving any real RS that discusses this indepth. Read the guideline, then comment with a reliable source. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite I've read WP:SIGCOV guideline before commenting, I was not repeating myself, I gave a real RS that discusses this in-depth and the pageant is discussed in-depth. How much more absurd can you get? If they're not discussing anything in-depth, then why is the pageant the subject of the article? The discussion? If the Pope is not Catholic, then why is he the head the Catholic Church? Do you have no common sense whatsoever? IZ041 (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:IZ041 Why don't you copy and paste the exact quote from the source here so that other editors also see how significant the coverage is. you do understand french right? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite here is the english translation of the article if you're not convinced:

After the dissolution of the Miss Lorraine regional committee, will the election scheduled for September 5 in Vittel take place? Sylvie TELLIER: “Yes. It is not possible to organize the election of Miss France without a representative of Lorraine. Given the very short deadlines, and rather than appointing a new regional delegate in an emergency, we called on a provisional organizer. This is the neighboring Miss Burgundy committee, whose professionalism and loyalty to Miss France values we know. He will supervise the candidates and accompany the new Miss elected until the Miss France competition in December. Thank you to the town hall of Vittel who insisted on maintaining this election. They trust us, and we promise them a superb election. " Your regional delegate, Ludovic Faroult, resigned at the end of March. This left you time to set up a new team. Why did you not succeed? “After the resignation of Ludovic Faroult, the Lorraine committee asked us for time to reorganize. They wished to elect a new president in order to be able to continue their mission and thus request the approval of the delegation. I moved to Metz to meet them. However, the new presidency failed to unite its members and the committee finally dissolved in May. It now seems important to us to take the time to set up an organization that offers the necessary guarantees. " The atmosphere around the Miss contests has been particularly heavy for several months in Lorraine, giving an uninviting image for the candidates and their families. How do you explain it? “It is difficult for me to explain past motivations and behaviors. Today, our duty is to assure the young women elected in the departments that the regional final will take place in September. They were also contacted and reassured. " Ludovic Faroult has registered the Miss Moselle, Miss Meurthe-et-Moselle, Miss Meuse and Miss Vosges brands and is selling them. What do you think of this approach? “The ownership of these brands does not give the right to organize a competition taking the Miss France brand. It is important that potential buyers are informed. Only the local, departmental and regional elections organized under the aegis of the Miss France regional delegate qualify for the Miss Lorraine regional election for Miss France. "

As you can see this pageant is the subject of the article with the coverage that is needed from this reliable source. IZ041 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. The template attached to the article, Template:Miss France regions, which was created in 2017, has 54 red links to 9 links to actual articles, which says it all about the notability of these local pageants. They are just not notable with high school yearbook level lists of winners being available or a local interview for sources. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient coverage in different sources. One source does not an article make. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Mukwala[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's coverage out there but not enough for GNG. If more can be found then please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He already passes WP:GNG based on the coverage in the article. Heaps of feature stories written on him. Top Ugandan players are well covered by national press. Also has played in the CECAFA Cup for Uganda. [45] SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we need to be wary of African internationals really being age-specific competitions, but National Football Teams lists 1 full international cap. Spells the name Stephen. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ugandan press (Kawowo specifically) and the Vipers official website call him Steven, which I find persuasive. SportingFlyer T·C 08:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well referenced article, some significant articles. The briefest Google News search finds 817 articles, many are recent, first page all looks relevant. Undoubtedly meets GNG. Before failure. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Borrell[edit]

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

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Existing coverage is trivial. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think, as far as I can see he has managed five games with Iraklis F.C. (Thessaloniki) in the Greek Football league which passes WP:NFOOTY per [46]. Govvy (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was only in charge of Iralkis for 3 games according to this but that is enough to meet NFOOTBALL, and there is no shortage of coverage out there. Giant Snowman 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG easily through his youth coaching accomplishments. Seasider91 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm ready to withdraw my nomination as I wasn't aware of his Iraklis stint. My bad, not enough WP:BEFORE. But otherwise, his achievements and coverage come down to being an academy coach who at some point crossed paths with the likes of Messi and Sterling, and working under Guardiola. Not enough notability on these points alone, IMO. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:39, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FFACE[edit]

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

PRODed with the rationale 'Promotional article about talent management agency in Kolkata refbombed with unreliable sources.' DePRODed so here we are. Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Over 20 references entered from all reliable sources such as The Times of India, Republic TV, The Telegraph (Kolkata), Network18 Group, The Indian Express, India Today and many more. Unsure what is not reliable here? Ravishingrama (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes lots of references added but where is the in-depth discussion of the agency and its work? I see a lot of PR and not much else. Mccapra (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Since your update I have further added more notable work by the agency including 3 more references to support the work. If you think the article should be written in more depth, please feel free to put a Multiple issues template suggesting to add further citations, or re-written encouraging others to contribute. The article definitely passes WP:GNG based on the coverages received. Ravishingrama (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It’s not that the article needs more sources or that it needs to describe the agency in more depth. What it needs is sources that describe the subject in depth - that aren’t just photos, PR and passing mentions. Of the sources you’ve provided, which three do you think provide the most in-depth discussion of the subject? Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Thank you for your comments. There are multiple articles I have used as references which talks about the subject in depth. Non exhaustive articles are available online. As requested, providing a list of couple of references/articles below which talks in depth about the agency or agency's activity. Note A few notable articles are in vernacular (Bengali) as the agency is from Kolkata, West Bengal - India. This satisfies WP:NONENG

http://www.millenniumpost.in/features/fface-calendar-2019-launched-at-the-park-335221?infinitescroll=1 - Millennium Post
https://bengali.indianexpress.com/entertainment/beauty-has-no-shape-says-neil-roy-while-launching-fface-anokhi-101115/# - Indian Express Bengali
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/city-model-hunt-finalists-to-contend-in-global-fashion-show-115022000423_1.html - Business Standard
https://epaper.telegraphindia.com/imageview_271659_16837432_4_79_24-05-2019_12_i_1_sf.html - The Telegraph Kolkata
https://bengali.news18.com/news/entertainment/tollywood-movies-fface-introduces-addatimes-fame-us-a-fface-reality-series-213891.html - Network 18 News Bengali
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/city-youth-sails-into-global-fashion-icon-show-115032100729_1.html - Business Standard by Press Trust of India
https://ebela.in/entertainment/night-guard-irfan-will-be-featured-in-fface-model-hunt-reality-web-series-dgtl-1.862454 - ABP Ebela by Anandabazar Patrika

Do let me know if you need more sources? There are plenty more I can provide. Ravishingrama (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. The sources you’ve set out here are all interviews and PR. They are not the reliable independent sourcing we need. Anyway I’ve said enough now in this discussion so won’t make any further comments and leave it to other editors. All the best Mccapra (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, may be you are right, we should wait for others to comment. Also am doubtful if you read and understand Bengali Language, because if you don't you can't make a decision on whether all set out here are interviews/PR. Just to clarify, there are no interviews, there are quotes/bytes of the directors/owner of the brand in the news coverage(s) which are normal. Most of them are independent coverages. If you do not consider articles from reputed journals/newspapers like The Times of India, Republic TV, The Telegraph (Kolkata), Network18 Group, The Indian Express, India Today, Business Standard, Press Trust of India to be reliable, I doubt what is reliable to you then. Cheers! Ravishingrama (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah totally, it must just be that the nominator doesn't understand the Bengali language, because it's not Chrome and other browsers don't translate pages now. Whatever. Your comment makes it pretty obvious though that you didn't check the references to see if they were actually reliable before you posted them though. Since they are in English. Not surprising. Ref bombing and personal attacks seem to be par for the course with AfDs about Indian companies for whatever reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this company. All the references are garbage PR, press releases, brief mentions, or not even about the company. It should also be deleted because the creator of the article, who is obviously paid, moved the article back into the main space after it was drafted because they didn't want it to go through the proper review process for paid articles. Considering that and the lack of notability, I see zero reason for it to exist. The person should have just gone through the proper procedure, that would have probably helped with notability, so this AfD wasn't needed in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A nominator not knowing a foreign language is understandable and being sarcastic about the creator who is editing in Wiki English by saying, "your comment makes it pretty obvious though that you didn't check the references to see if they were actually reliable before you posted them though. Since they are in English. Not surprising.", and "Ref bombing and personal attacks seem to be par for the course with AfDs about Indian companies for whatever reason" is blatantly offensive and personal attack by itself.
  - Comment Article moved to Drafts for further edits and improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravishingrama (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back. It needs to stay in article space until this is closed. ~ GB fan 14:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I took over an hour to go through these articles mentioned, and a bit more of digging around, I found it's worth keeping. With my ability to read and understand Bengali and Hindi as a language, the brand has significant and noteworthy media coverage and just not mere passing comments. I also found their social media handles on Instagram and Facebook. Both the handles are verified with a blue tick and the latter having over 1.1 million followers. I also noted a photo album of media coverage on their Facebook page Media Album which has significant amount of media coverage which definitely passes WP:GNG Few of the biggest national press has covered stories of this brand. To conclude, the article is worth a keep, but having said that, few parts of the article can be encouraged to be written from a neutral point of view. Iamthebest21212 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC) — Iamthebest21212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ok so after an hour of research you want us to understand that the company has blue tick accounts on Facebook and Instagram? Social media accounts and photo albums are not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. That’s the whole problem with this article. There are plenty of mentions of the agency, but not actual coverage. There are plenty of pictures, but not in-depth, independent discussion of it. That’s what we need. Mccapra (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, that is not what I meant. A blue tick in Facebook and Instagram was an add on comment to say it has definite notability. Having said that, the images you are talking about for which I provided a link on my earlier comment is excerpts from notable media who does not have an E-paper link. There are plenty of those, however the creator has not used any of those on the article. To counter your point, there are plenty of articles I found on Google which covers in depth discussion of the brand or the brand's events from 2014. There are consistent news articles for last 6 years. For example Indian Express Bengali, Times Of India Bengali and Tollykata talks in greater detail about the brand and its activity. This definitely passes WP:SUSTAINED . Finally I want to put forward the policies of WP:NEXIST and WP:NPOSSIBLE where editors are strongly encouraged to find sources of the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Thus my views on the article remains unchanged. Iamthebest21212 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I examined all of the references in the article and those posted here. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. With that in mind, here's my analysis of the references posted at this AfD which are largely representative (and slightly better) than the ones in the article

This from Millennium Post has no attributed journalist but leaving that aside, is company PR for the "launch" of their 2019 calendar. The text is not original in that parts are exactly replicated in other articles such as one in the Daily Hunt (link blacklisted so can't post here), WhatsNewLife and (oddly enough .. or not) some text is also repeated for the launch of their 2020 calendar in Best Bengal. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This from Indian Express Bengali is another announcement. There is no in-depth information on the company (which is mentioned in passing) and it is entirely based on the interview with the founder. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
This from Business Standard is based yet again on a company announcement and quotations from the founder, has only mentions-in-passing with no in-depth information on the compnay and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
This from The Telegraph Kolkata has no attributed journalist but leaving that aside, is insignificant PR to "announce" their fifth anniversary and this "article" appears in the celeb-gossip section complete with "celebs" who attended the party. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
This from Network 18 News Bengali is an article on a new reality TV web show. Yet more PR. It contains zero information on the company. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.
This next from Business Standard has no attributed journalist but leaving that aside, is about a contestants in the company's annual search for new talent. It contains zero information on the company itself and it is PR complete with the usual photos and quotes. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
This from ABP Ebela is also PR and is about one of the contestants on the "Model Hunt" reality show. It contains zero information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.

There is no doubt that this company exists and generates a lot of "noise" in order to promote their calendar and TV shows but it is fairly easy to see that this is a result of company PR. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria, existing references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:02, 20 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 Withdrawn. withdrawn, see here FASTILY 00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Scroll[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, which requires multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find anything in reliable sources or WP:VG/RS ones besides an update announcement [47] and only 1 short review in AppSpy. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's the mentioned AppSpy review, TouchArcade, GamesRadar, GameSpot. Gets a paragraph in Computer Gaming World 247 (pg 68). Eh? --Izno (talk) 15:01, 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 draftify. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bargaining (film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, shooting hasn't started. Antila (✉) 09:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Antila (✉) 09:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Antila (✉) 09:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This will be notable eventaully, why waste the work with formatting etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft move to draftspace until shooting begins and there is more significant coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - As above; incubate in draftspace. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:01, 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 result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Khambata[edit]

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

I do not believe Khambata passess our notability guidelines. At time of the nomination, this is sourced to company web pages. In my WP:BEFORE I found a few better sources, however they are mostly lacking in depth and are brief quotes of Khambata in her role as director or financial analyst. The most in-depth sources are from her nomination as a board member on Tata Sons's board of directors and appear to rely possibly on company PR (e.g. [48]). For completeness, she has authored a few academic articles in the 80s and a few are cited (top 5: 90, 71, 9, 3, 2), however this is not sufficient for academic notability. Eostrix (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable in finance or as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ms Khambata is a prominent economist in the international forum as a former key decision making member at International Finance Corporation (itself a member organization of the World Bank and an economic watchdog of emerging markets). She has been credited in atleast one trusted source ( IMF]) in coining the term "Frontier markets", a distinction recognized and used by established financial bodies (like in this one from WFE where she is again credited) and publishers (e.g this and this) to better analyze developing economies. The page needs significant improvement but must be considered a keep. SaHiL (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SaHiL created this article. ResearchGate is a presentation and a brief mention (two bullets). In IMF there is one sentence ("Following the advent of the concept of emerging markets in the early 1980s, Farida Khambata of the International Finance Corporation introduced the notion of frontier markets in the following decade."). The other sources mentioned by SaHiL do not even mention Khambata.--Eostrix (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- After a little revisit, I have removed 'ResearchGate' as a referable source. However, In the IMF Library, she is not just passingly mentioned by the author, but credited for the term "Frontier Markets", of which a whole chapter is dedicated (Chapter 8. Frontier Markets in Asia and Beyond). The other two publisher links (this and this) are articles on Frontier Markets, added to establish the impact she had on the World economic forum. Here're more sources ( ForeignPolicy.com, GlobalCapital.com). Here's a 1981 case study and a 1982 book she co-authored, both published by the world bank. These publication's are also referred as a source of other books on emerging economics like in here and here. Lastly, "SaHiL created this article" could have been credible reason for AFD if the article was about "Sahil" (WP:PROUD) or written as a promoting advert, which this article is neither. The article, about an established economist with decades of presence and recognition in the Emerging Markets forum and in major South Asian corporations, was created because it simply wasn't there when it should've been. It just needs more definitive contributions from the WP community -- SaHiL (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easytostable (talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not notable as an economist or as an academic, despite copious references letting us know this person exists. Notability is more then that. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:05, 20 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 , or more specifically there is consensus not to delete but no consensus on whether to merge or not. Anyone wishing to merge the article is, as ever, able to do so without establishing a new consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone pelting in India[edit]

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

An OR article. Stone pelting as a form of long-standing practice or crime worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia has already been discussed at Stone pelting in Kashmir. This article tries to take that and make it into a national affair with reports that some stone-pelters were jailed here and there. As a phenomenon, this exists only in Kashmir, but if a person picks up a stone anywhere in India and debrains someone, of course, he is going to be jailed for it. However, a couple of incidents don't mean that it is a national phenomenon. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage also concerns regions outside Kashmir. Sections such as Stone pelting in India#Anti-CAA protests and Stone pelting in India#Coronavirus lockdown confirms that this phenomenon is popular outside Kashmir as well and the nominator is utterly misleading. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Harmanprtjhj you need sources that say that this is a phenomenon outside kashmir. Merely giving news reports and combining them in an article is OR. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist on main article page. You should better withdraw your misleading nomination. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Subject passes general notability guideline. I agree that the nomination misrepresents the scope of the subject. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 07:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Harmanprtjhj and User:Capankajsmilyo for the subject to pass notability there must be a Reliable source that talks about stone pelting in india as a phenomenon. In the entire article there is no such source. All the creator has done is collected incidents of stone pelting (most of them recent in lockdown and Citizen act protests) and then created the article under the term stone pelting in india. No reliable source has discussed this as a phenomenon. Take gun violence in the USA, there are multiple reliable sources that talk about gun violence in the USA, and the article is not just a colelction of news stories. There should be news stories included but the base of the article is a reliable source that should discuss stone pelting as a phenomenon. The article in its current form is just WP:OR. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Does not pass WP:GNG on its own merit as a phenomenon. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stone pelting in Kashmir is either a legitimate sub-page of this page or it should be merged into this page, not the other way around. My very best wishes (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stone-pelting in Kashmir unless a reliable source about stone-pelting throughout India is found. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Stone pelting in Kashmir to this article. With such huge sections backed with reliable sources about CAA and Coronavirus, you can't say only coverage about Kashmir is important. Ashishkafle (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and merge Stone peltinh in Kashmir into this one.BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Stone pelting in Kashmir is covered as a phenomenon that occurs in the region in its unique socio-political context as compared to the rest of India. Using the example of gun violence in the United States, it doesn't make much sense to create a gun violence in North America unless it were to pass notability on its own merit so similarly it doesn't make any sense to merge the Kashmir article with this one just on the basis of a geographical or jurisdictional hierarchy. This article also has a ton of original research, for instance the very first line in the lead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:16, 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 result was delete. MER-C 18:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Bagirov[edit]

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

Notability is under question. Doesn't meet criterias of WP:BLP --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unremarkable as of yet. Geschichte (talk) 07:54, 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 keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid U. H. Qureshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPROF. Störm (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to satisfy WP:NPROF: IEEE Fellow and the author of academic research that has thousands of citations. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the article meets WP:NPROF as a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. MarkZusab (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stood, the article appears to have been copied from his author bio here. He does appear to pass WP:PROF as an IEEE Fellow (elected 1987), so I stubbified the page to remove the copyvio concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF C3 as others have said. I expanded the article back up, using but not copying the IEEE article source, and adding a few others. XOR'easter, perhaps you'll want to look and make sure that you have no concerns. Remark that he seems to have died by 2002 (per Memorial Scholarship in past UT records), though I couldn't find an obituary. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already demonstrated clear academic notability (the IEEE Fellow) at nomination time, and has since been significantly cleaned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 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 keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sancta Maria College, Louisburgh[edit]

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

Schools aren't inherently notable and this subject fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The article relies almost solely upon the school's website. I found coverage from local newspapers in County Mayo, but it's mostly mere mentions. The only item of note was a prior school construction project, which of course isn't mentioned here at all because this is really a fanpage for students. With no significant coverage in independent outlets, there's no claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am gathering articles and other information from independent sources to improve this page. This is also part of WikiProject Ireland a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. Another editor removed 5000 off the page including the staff list which you wanted to see. I will take on your recommendations and improve the page. 1awsshark (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1awsshark (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, let us build up this page till this AfD discussion get closed. Later, if the article doesn't qualify as per the consensus, then the competent authority can simply delete it. - Hatchens (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim of being "Ireland's first Catholic co-educational secondary school" may be significant and would help establish notability if expanded upon (reasoning, significance, etc.) If not for this fact the subject would certainly not meet WP:NSCHOOL guidelines. This fact does not necessarily sway me to keep but does keep me from straightforward delete. Keeping the fan/schoolcruft out would also be beneficial.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While primarily in local sources, there is at least a moderate amount of independent coverage of the subject. And the claim of "Ireland's first Catholic co-educational secondary school" seems to be supported by at least a few otherwise reliable sources. While the coverage is far from overwhelming, and the historical WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:SCHOOLCRUFT style content should not be restored (the "list of subjects" and "list of musicals" and "list of teachers" being entirely inappropriate for example), the subject itself is at least (perhaps just about) notable. Mine is the weakest of "weak keep" recommendations.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being the first Catholic co-educational school in Ireland is sufficient to demonstrate notability, and this is verified by local news and an Irish government source. That is enough for me. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Street, Sydney[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD - no significant coverage by independent sources DannyS712 (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article creator is currently blocked (unrelated to behavior at this article), not due to expire until after the usual AFD timeframe. DMacks (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication this street is notable; I cannot find any significant coverage.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would also be fine. P-K3 (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hay Street was the first street created in Sydney outside of the original Sydney Cove settlement, there should be some sources on it. Have you tried the State Library or Sydney City Council? At present a ~~Merge~~Redirect to Sydney central business district or to Haymarket, New South Wales wouldn't go astray? Deus et lex (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deus et lex: Not sure a merge is useful - the only content is "Hay Street is a street in the Sydney central business district." - redirect? --DannyS712 (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: - apologies, I did mean a redirect! I have fixed this. Deus et lex (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support a redirect
~~weak~~ keep looking at the street, it has the light rail running along it theres some reference to it history "FOUR DECADES IN HAY-ST.—DAWN GATHERING IN SYDNEY". The West Australian. Western Australia. 29 April 1939. p. 24. Retrieved 13 May 2020 – via Trove. there are number incidents that have taken place on the street over time. At the cnr of Pitt Street was Presbyterian Manse built in 1846, Paddy's Market and 181-187 Hay Street, Sydney as heritage places. Theres any article in there somewhere on Trove there are a substantive list of media articles related to the street, given the markets it'll take time to dig out the notable ones, the Capitol Theatre, Sydney stage door is on Hay street also. As merge/redirect target would be better to the suburb of Haymarket, Sydney which its self probably derives from Hay st being where the markets were moved to make them close to Darling harbor(my OR/Synth). Gnan garra 04:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

add this source http://nswaol.library.usyd.edu.au/data/pdfs/22637_ID_Annable1989FormerAustralianGasLightCompanySiteArchExTextVol1.pdf about the manse.... Gnan garra 04:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sydney central business district or Haymarket, New South Wales. Regardless of any perceived notability, with no content other than "Hay Street is a street in the Sydney central business district" and a 7-year-old image, the article has no encylopaedic value to the reader. It's best to redirect this directly to either of the suggested articles so the reader doesn't have to click twice. That said, I would also agree that delete is certainly an option I'd support. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously the article needs work, but this is a major street in a major city which is lined with historic buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If only the article told us that. Maybe it should be redirected to this page. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no content, just one shoret sentence. Teraplane (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very historic street but the article fails to cover almost all the information, Needs major work. DCook58 (Talk) 03:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice of recreation if someone wants to actually write a notable article on it. It's one of those which might pass WP:GNG if someone does an NLA search and puts a little work into it. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as is. Might be proven notable if proper research was done, but this one sentence article is both meaningless and makes no claim to notability of any kind. That it exists does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:15, 20 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. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllyCAD[edit]

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

Deprodded by WP:SPA with no rationale. My PROD concern was "Not seeing how this passes WP:NSOFT/GNG. BEFORE does not show any reviews or in-depth coverage, only press releases and mentions in passing." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nomination/BEFORE has various issues and entitled to speedy under WP:CSK 2. Allegations of deProdder ZengaONE as WP:SPA behind the back here and not the talk page are concerning. The Quick succession of Template:notabilty at the same time of PROD gave short period for addressing concerns in the altered current lockdown conditions in many places. The passing mention claims, we have ISBN:0853620792 P:20088 to start. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djm-leighpark: It would help us a lot if you could cite (link and quote, preferably) the sources you found, see comments below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see coverage that would let us keep this article. I don't see anything that can justify a SK2 or any other speedy keep—the {{Notability}} tag was unnecessary, but ultimately does not materially affect things. Djm-leighpark, I can't find any signs that AllyCAD was even mentioned in the book you cited, in either digitised copy [49] [50]. Would it be possible for you to provide a quote? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "SNA Civil and structural engineers and longstanding users of civil Designer and AllyCAD and have integrated the software with great success into their branches. The infrastructure design software was used to produce the final designs for the Thaba'Nchu Community development project". The general idea of of WP:BEFORE is to seek out alternatives to deletion and to give time for such a such a search, especially for a long standing article; which is why the criteria C.3 suggests that. There are also possibilities the nom. is taking a targetted WP:HOUND attack at on one contributor in one particular subject area without seeking consensus at WikiProject level ... but now I'm getting into WP:WPA area. The link I have using is for South African Institution of Civil Engineers, 2007 - Civil engineering Volume 15. There is further quote on that on October 2007 P.24 .... The google book id I note is l_kRAQAAMAAJ. 19:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Setting aside other issues, the provided quote seems like a passing mention of the subject, and not in-depth coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that one in the Google book results, and I would have to agree with the nom that it's only a passing mention. "AllyCAD" This Financial Mail result seems like it could be a possible hit, but although I couldn't identify which article it is from the Google snippet, or find a full text, I suspect it is also a passing mention in an article about exports from multiple companies. Supposedly Dow Jones Factiva has the journal in question but I haven't been able to find it there either. I just don't see any significant coverage of this software. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus has pinged me on this to provide further details and I will simply comment that what is a usefully described feature to one eyes in an advert to another with a negative POV. I see the above as more than a passing mention and those with a negative POV will call it passing. The Financial Mail result I took as only passing, but it was difficult to view. I believe Chief Designer is (perhaps not obviously) from the same company and a merge may be in order .... though I expect someone to hunk that up to AfD. The software seems to have most impact in South Africa ... unless I'm having the wool pulled over my eyes.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've dabbled through some DB:V refs to indicate WP:NSOFT presumption met due to widespread educational use in South Africa. Twxit Lockdown with shut libraries and link-rot since 2000s thats not really bad going.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL software, most of whose citations are primary sources. Completely lacked sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources in the WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cellblockistry[edit]

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

The is a neologism coined last year by the author VB Shidham whose publications are cited as the first two sources. None of the other sources mention the term. Fails WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. --Pontificalibus 06:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to probably failing GNG as per nom, this appears to be a self-promo and/or attempt to establish a new term/concept and give it legitimacy by way of a WP article. Some of the 'argumentation' is also essay-like at best, nonsensical at worst. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism without uptake. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A neologism that is not wiki-notable. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 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 merge to Maserati Tipo 151. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maserati Tipo 154[edit]

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

The said car was actually a modified Maserati Tipo 151 and there are reliable sources suggesting that it was renumbered as Tipo 151 004 after receiving its modifications in 1964. This article meets the criteria for deletion as it doesn't establish notability, having only one source which is considered unreliable due to it being more of a personal blog. U¹ _quattro TALK 06:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Maserati Tipo 151 as apparently this was a variant. Retswerb (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the source doesn't even call it "154", so this one is easy. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe it should be merged with Maserati Tipo 151. Prova MO (talk) 22:23, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Espen Rostrup Nakstad[edit]

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

non notable doctor with no lasting or indepth coverage. Yes there are a couple of interviews, but there is no independant lasting coverage. Fails GNG and SIGCOV MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is the second most known figurehead of the health response in Norway to the covid-19 pandemic. Misty's "couple of interviews" are in-depth, significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Hence the nomination is utterly flawed. Geschichte (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 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 06:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe he has received enough coverage to pass GNG. There are quite a few reliable sources that have provided significant coverage of him, such as; Espen Nakstad's great grief is also his strength, Espen Rostrup Nakstad hopes to visit Målselv soon and Espen Rostrup Nakstad has managed to become a much loved bureaucrat, though all sources are in Norwegian. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of what I found are interviews, which is not surprising given his current position. However, there are some articles that are focused on him. Everything I found was in Norwegian. Based on my search on both the internet and Google Scholar, I'd have said he wasn't notable until the COVID-19 pandemic. I'd say he's notable unless the pandemic falls under WP:ONEEVENT, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 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) 06:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of CHL playoffs series[edit]

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

List fails WP:LISTN as a standalone list. I could not find any sources which indicate why having a summary of every playoff series played in the CHL is notable. The compilation of such as list is WP:FANCRUFT and a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Some of the information would be suitable to have on the individual articles for each team instead, if properly sourced. Flibirigit (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. This list is an odd way to look at playoff histories, and it appears to be an idea that the original editor embarked upon without realizing what a big job it would become. As a fan of the Windsor Spitfires, I might be interested in seeing this sort of detail on the team's article, but not in a pan-CHL list of all teams like this.........PK T(alk) 16:40, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruba Wilson[edit]

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

Being related to a notable person (Shanice Wilson) in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. This article relies on blogs and YouTube videos. In addition to failing WP:GNG, the article also seems like self-promotion. Horizonlove (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 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 redirect to El Dorado Canyon (Nevada). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alturas, Nevada[edit]

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

Lingenfelter (1978) is the only possibly WP:RS for this location. It is not listed in the GNIS, it had no post office. See Talk:Alturas, Nevada. User:Boleyn removed the notability template from a number of places in Nevada where I had added it, so I'll be slowly starting AfDs for these. Cxbrx (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Cxbrx (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Cxbrx (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into El Dorado Canyon (Nevada); just a sentence or two will do. CJK09 (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CJK09. Thanks for taking a look. I agree that a merge would be fine. El Dorado Canyon (Nevada) already mentions Alturas, Nevada and cites Lingenfelter. There is not much to say about Alturas. In the past, I've been bold and just redirected pages like this as I see fit. I could do that now, Alturas is so non-notable that I think the Alturas page should just go away. Cxbrx (talk) 01:45, 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Buhler[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability Ledalion (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable "social entrepeneur".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is heavy on affiliated sourcing, and appears to have been written originally by the subject's sister. I looked for better sourcing, and found some short news items about her winning an award as a teenager, but there's no lasting coverage. From LinkedIn and the like I see that she seems to have done some academic research work, and how has a career in law, but there's no significant independent coverage. Fails GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:43, 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) 04:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Rice[edit]

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

Student organization (now-defunct) with minimal third party coverage and no sources. Additionally, appears to have been created by people affiliated with the organization. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable non-campus sources found for this defunct student theatre group. No other indicia of notability. The article cites no sources, and the ELs are either dead or tangential. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and above. WP:MILL student organisation. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:51, 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) 04:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Shivam Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable and non-elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 02:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 02:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 02:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the editor who created this has made a mistake. The subject of the article is the leader of the student union at Allahabad University. Of the references provided, 1,2,4,5 and 6 are about this person in Hindi media. If the sources are reliable then there is a case that the subject passes WP:GNG though not a very strong case, because the coverage is about a protracted single incident. References 3 and 7 appear to be about two completely different people who happen to have similar names and have got swept up in the process of creating this article. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a possible case of G5 please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakurjiofficial. GSS ^💬 06:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even if one of the people referred to in the references (I can see references for at least three people amalgamated in the article), TNT might be our friend as the article is in shambles. Java Hurricane 07:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is insufficient notability in being the head of a students' union to pass WP:ANYBIO. serial ^# 11:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No chance that this person can deserve an article given how not-well-known he is, and how bad the article is. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced the sources cited are all talking about the same person; with the broken English of the article, it's hard to ascertain. Subject certainly fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. This article should be developed in the Wikipedia of the native language of the subject's area. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, holding a role in student government is not a notability claim, I'm still waiting for an answer as to why editors in India seem so much more uniquely convinced that it would be than editors anywhere else on earth are, and the article is not reliably sourced even close to well enough to make him more special than everybody else in student government. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 20:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 08:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable unelected politican. Someone needs to search out some of the legacy 10-plus year old articles on unelected US politicians and remove them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 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) 04:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wertheim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stephen Wertheim

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

lack of notability, self-promotion and publicity Subreal111 (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards a move to draft space. There is some coverage, but on the surface it doesn't appear to mount to much. If someone wants to try and make an article of this in draft, I would afford them the chance. BD2412 T 04:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation counts too low for WP:PROF#C1 and nothing else evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the academic inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low number of citations at Google Scholar and nothing to show any criteria at WP:NPROF are met. My search doesn't find evidence that WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:43, 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) 04:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Creek Summer Home Area, California[edit]

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

Well, it's porbably a "community" in the sense that the people who live in this loose collection of houses know each other and occasionally get together for activities. But it is actually what it says: an area where summer homes were built under the Forest Service Recreation Residence program. The thing is, knowing all this, there is next to nothing about this particular area other than passing references to it as a locale. The GNIS data came from a Forest Service map, but for whatever reason their website has at least for moment blocked access to maps for this forest. It's unlabelled on topos until the GNIS label got copied into them, by which point USGS had quite showing buildings on the maps; the older ones do show the stretch of houses but say nothing about them. At any rate, it is not a village or town. Mangoe (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign that these summer homes meet our notability standards. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GEOLAND as a summer home colony. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:08, 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 Snow keep. Only the nominator has offered a reason to delete, which didn't include reasoning and has been refuted by every other participant. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Galleon, Greenwich[edit]

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

non-notable Hillelfrei ^talk 01:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hillelfrei ^talk 01:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Grade II listed pub deemed notable due to national heritage listing. See the first point of WP:GEOFEAT. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Philafrenzy: Just so I don't make this mistake again, the article doesn't say anything about it being listed as a national heritage site. How do you know that? Hillelfrei ^talk 16:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It states, and always has, that it is grade II listed which links to listed building which is a type of national heritage classification. See also List of heritage registers. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: Got it Hillelfrei ^talk 21:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Philafrenzy beat me to it - passes WP:GEOFEAT. And "non-notable" as one's entire deletion argument is particularly feeble. Edwardx (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Philafrenzy. The place meets WP:GEOFEAT. MarkZusab (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT and claiming it as 'non-notable' clearly shows a poor understanding of our deletion and notability guidelines. Antila (✉) 07:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Antila: Right. I'll review relevant deletion and notability guidelines before starting another deletion discussion. Hillelfrei ^talk 16:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a grade-II listed building. Enough said. Hog Farm (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. No good reason given in nomination in any case. You need more than a two-word opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBUILD, listed, nuff said. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:42, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Positions of minor political parties in Canadian federal elections[edit]

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

Pure WP:SYNTH. While these parties' platforms and positions are individually noteworthy (or may be so), there is nothing to suggest that the combined listing of several minor, disparate parties is a noteworthy subject on its own merits. While there may be articles out there to the effect of "here's what these minor parties think about the election's issues", WP:ROUTINE election coverage cannot be used to demonstrate notability, putting us back at square one. Additionally, the lack of in-line citations but external links to party websites makes me suspect the whole thing is WP:OR and should be thrown out entirely. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no particular value in synthesizing different parties' platforms into an omnibus article like this. If a political party has an article, then any noteworthy and reliably sourceable platform positions they ran on should be noted there, and if a political party doesn't have an article, then documenting its platform positions is not mission-critical enough to require a cross-party overview like this as a substitute. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 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) 04:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stratics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Website doesn't meet the general notability guideline. I looked and could not find reliable, independent, third party sources. Some PR stuff and primary sources. Heads up that there are multiple companies and sites using this name. Jontesta (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Jontesta (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and I don't think it will ever pass it. Also an overuse of external links outside of external links section. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 02:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I'm looking through the previous AfD nomination results, I'm failing to see why there was such a resounding vote for keeping this article. There are six sources for this article - three are alexa ranking and whois statistics, and the other three are from the website itself. Searching for this website reveals no coverage; most instances of the name appearing instead refer to an unrelated telemarketing company of the same name. At most, some of this information can be transcluded to the community section of the article for the game that this site covers. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above: no significant coverage. Its boasted 176,414 rank (as of 2014) on Alexa Internet (as of 2020-05-11, it's actually 468,540) is also quite indicative of this. For comparison, the also-unnotable Gematsu hovers around 18,790. IceWelder [✉] 16:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article just does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:12, 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) 04:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking literature[edit]

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

This article is nothing but original research. Yes -- there are literary works that involve spanking. There are probably some secondary sources on the topic of spanking in literature (it is hard to search for them, though, because search terms like "spanking literature" mostly bring up medical and social science papers). But there are no reliable sources that support the idea of "spanking literature" as a genre.

Looking at the two sources cited in this mostly unsourced article, I do not have access to The erotic margin: sexuality and spatiality in alteritist discourse but it is only used to support the inclusion of one book in the very long list of books, so I doubt it contains any substantial analysis of "spanking literature" as a whole. The Private Case is again used to cite the existence of one book and it is a bibliography, discussing individual works, not the topic in general. There is an external link to an article on sadomasochistic literature on glbtq.com but the article does not even mention spanking.

The article discusses the "Golden Age of Spanking" at length, but this concept does not seem to exist outside of Wikipedia, blogs, and porn novels self-published through Amazon: see Google search results. I checked Gale and JSTOR as well -- nothing. This appears to be pure WP:OR. Similarly, searches for "spanking literature", "spanking fiction", "spanking books" and so on only bring up examples of such, not WP:RS coverage of the supposed genre. Books about spanking indeed exist but this article is just a mess of unsourced synthesis. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a genre, but a group of mostly painful folks that want to make it a thing, and the sourcing isn't there to make it happen. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's pure OR. And I also was unable to find any reliable sources about spanking literature or the "Golden Age of Spanking". Crossroads ^-talk- 03:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find significant coverage, does not appear to be discussed by reliable independent sources --DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is just some fetishists that want to get their "media" on wikipedia. and sources are very much lacking. Clone commando sev (talk) 02:15, 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.

[1] "MY LIFE WITH DETH". GOOGLE BOOKS. Retrieved 11 May 2020.

[2] "SCORPION Q & A". Megadeth.com. Retrieved 11 May 2020.

[3] "The Top 500 Heavy Metal Albums of All time". Google Books. Retrieved 11 May 2020.

[4] "JEFF BECERRA Puts An End To Debate Over Who Was The First Death Metal Band: DEATH Or POSSESSED". Blabbermouth. Blabbermouth. Retrieved 11 May 2020.

[5] "Scream Bloody Gore: The Choosing Death Interview Outtakes". Decibel Magazine. Retrieved 11 May 2020.

[6] "Metal or Punk? Not Even Headbangers Know". LA TIMES. Retrieved 11 May 2020.

[7] "1986: THE YEAR THRASH METAL EXPLODED, THANKS TO THREE NOW-CLASSIC ALBUMS". LA WEEKLY. Retrieved 11 May 2020.

[8] "The Maa-Beti Wonder Women: Seema and Komal Rao". The Times of India. 8 March 2018.

[9] "Meet India's tough woman commando trainer who is also a doctor". gulfnews.com. 15 April 2018.

[10] "'अगर आप आगे बढ़ना चाहते हैं तो कोई बाधा मुश्किल नहीं'- 'वंडर वुमेन' Seema Rao | ABP Shakti Samman". www.abplive.com (in Hindi). 7 March 2020.

[11] "For shooting out the glass ceiling". The New Indian Express. 17 December 2016.

[12] "Bruce Lee's legacy is being abused: Bustillo". The Times of India. 1 January 2012.

[13] "India's Only Woman Combat Trainer Has Coached Over 20,000 Soldiers". www.msn.com. 29 March 2019.

[14] "Société. Miss Bourgogne sauve Miss Lorraine". www.republicain-lorrain.fr (in French). Retrieved 2020-05-18.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]