Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 May 17 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Python Conference[edit]

Python Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random conference with no assertion of notability, spam magnet, 100% self-sourced article. Guy (help!) 23:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added some RS to the article. I haven't investigated notability yet, but there is verifiable material. Spam magnet is not a good reason for deletion; we don't delete articles because we are too lazy to maintain them. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't think it's fair to call PyCon a "random conference". PyCon is the primary Python programming conference.[1][2][3][4] The 2019 conference had nearly 3,400 participants and is the largest gathering for the Python community.[5] It has been going for around 17 years, and has spawned more than 40 other PyCons around the world.[6][7] PyCon 2020 was listed as (one of) "The best software engineering conferences (to attend) of 2020" and "As Python becomes ever more popular in the scientific community and for big data, the influence of PyCon will continue to grow."[8]

It is supported by many significant companies: Microsoft[9], Google[10] Facebook[11]

I'll add these into the main article.

  • Keep. The article definitely needs revamping and more sources. However, I don't agree with the delete. This is the foremost conference for one of the most important programming languages out there. Alan Islas (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a good topic, although needs more work but should not be deleted. Nika2020 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant changes have been made to the article since the nomination, which clearly assert the conference's notability. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:57, 24 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) 02:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ziv Biron[edit]

Ziv Biron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed under new article review / curation process. No indication of wp:notability. Zero wp:GNG suitable sources. Of the 8 reference listed, 4 are copies of the company's press release on his appointment, and 2 are copies of the company's press release on the digital assistant, one I was only able to glimpse (paywall) and didn't appear to have coverage of him. And one is an article about the digital assistant. In short, nothing about him except 4 copies of his company's press release on his appointment. One other note: has been tagged for notability and paid editing concern since December 2020. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 23:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aroma Café[edit]

Aroma Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a bit tricky to look for references since "Aroma Café" is, it turns out, a pretty common name for a café. But besides this 20-year old BBC story, I can't find sources about this chain and am not even sure it still exists as a chain. I don't think it passes WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was unable to find any sources in either English or Spanish. CJK09 (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources, no notability. --MewMeowth (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Hi MewMeowth Is your !vote based upon the state of sourcing in the article at the time it was nominated for deletion (link)? Note that per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Also note that sources have been provided in this discussion below, and more are also now present in the article. North America1000 08:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Farmbrough, Heather (1991-08-17). "Minding Your Own Business: The apostle of the escapist cafe - A management consultant who put theory into practice". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    2. Oldfield, Claire (1999-05-02). "Coffee shops stir up McDonald's - Takeover". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    3. Fox, Nicholas (1996-05-19). "Coffee with a dollop of the exotic - Aroma". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    4. Mesure, Susie (2002-02-19). "Caffé Nero pays McDonald's £3.5m for Aroma chain". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    5. Church, Emily (2002-05-10). "Caffé Nero sizes up U.K. coffee market". MarketWatch. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    6. "Caffe Nero to buy Aroma sites". BBC. 2002-02-18. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    7. Walsh, Dominic (1999-03-26). "McDonald's buys Aroma - Takeover". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    8. Teather, David (1999-03-26). "The Guardian: Big Mac firm in cappuccino takeaway". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    9. Packer, Charlotte (1995-03-24). "One more cup of coffee - Caf life began in London, not Paris. Now, reports Charlotte Packer, it's here again". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    10. Clark, Andrew (2002-02-18). "McDonald's sells after £20m latte loss". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    11. McClary, Samantha (2002-02-21). "Caffe Nero Sniffs Out 26 Aroma Purchases". The Caterer. Vol. 191, no. 4210. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    12. Walsh, Dominic (2002-02-19). "Nero's empire grows with Aroma deal - Coffee bar shake-up". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    13. Wendlandt, Astrid (2001-09-05). "Companies & Finance UK: Caffe Nero eyes McDonald's Aroma sites". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    14. Murray-West, Rosie (2002-04-03). "The Daily Telegraph: Caffe Nero steams into third place". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    15. Kipphoff, John (2002-02-19). "Companies & Finance UK: Hint of Aroma cheers Caffe Nero". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    16. Ritson, Alex (2001-08-27). "McDonalds to sell Aroma". BBC. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Farmbrough, Heather (1991-08-17). "Minding Your Own Business: The apostle of the escapist cafe - A management consultant who put theory into practice". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      MOST management consultants like to believe they could run their own business as well as those of other people - but few pluck up the courage to do so. And as Michael Zur-Szpiro found when he opened cafe Aroma, the first of a chain of express cafes, the nitty-gritty of running one's own business is quite different from the more abstract world of consulting.

      ...

      Encouraged by a number of his retailing clients, he started drawing up a business plan in August 1989, working every evening while he was still at the Boston Consulting Group in London. He also carried out spot checks in sandwich bars and on street corners to estimate average customer spend and potential traffic, and talked to sandwich bar proprietors, property companies, architects, designers and coffee merchants. He felt venture capital was the best option for a first-time, high risk enterprise, and he did not have any great concern to own all the company's shares himself. He wanted a partner who would be prepared to give advice and who would understand the need to spend on design and fittings.

      In March 1990, Alan Patricof Associates agreed to put up 80 per cent of the original share capital. Zur-Szpiro contributed 15 per cent, another investor the remainder. This left Zur-Szpiro with 44 per cent of the equity; his share has since been diluted to 38 per cent following a further injection of cash to open another two shops.

      ...

      In December last year, Aroma opened in Dean Street, Soho, London. It differs from most sandwich bars and cafes in the sense that none of the food is made on the premises. Two top London bakeries deliver croissants, bagels and bread at 7.30 am, but the sandwiches and salads are made by a small company, for whom 50 per cent of the business is Aroma. Vegetarian recipes are a speciality. Gourmet sandwiches with imaginative fillings like poached salmon, asparagus and saffron on exotic breads like honey whole wheat and walnut cost from Pounds 2.10 and Pounds 2.90. The classic sandwiches are Pounds 1 cheaper.

    2. Oldfield, Claire (1999-05-02). "Coffee shops stir up McDonald's - Takeover". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      The Aroma chain of shops was struggling against competitors but a turnround specialist made it attractive to the burger giant, writes Claire Oldfield

      IT TOOK Finlay Scott three years to transform the fortunes of Aroma, the London coffee-house chain, so that it caught the eye of McDonald's and became the burger giant's first full-scale acquisition outside its own brand.

      The deal, which is estimated to be worth between Pounds 10m and Pounds 20m, is made more remarkable because Aroma was a start-up in 1991 backed by venture capital and retained an entrepreneurial feel when McDonald's bought it.

      For those who owned the business, including Scott, Michael Zur-Szpiro, Aroma's founder, and Apax, the venture capitalist that first backed it in 1991, the sale to McDonald's was a resounding success both financially and because it marked the transformation of the business.

    3. Fox, Nicholas (1996-05-19). "Coffee with a dollop of the exotic - Aroma". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      TO ORDER a cup of coffee for most people in Britain is a simple choice: filter, espresso or cappuccino. But Finlay Scott, head of Aroma, the coffee-bar chain, is determined to change our simple tastes.

      Scott's brightly coloured bars offer coffee drinkers a host of variations ranging from Ristretto, described as a ``blast of energy", Cacaoccino, a creamy coffee laced with chocolate ice-cream, and Espresso Tazza D'Oro, a strong coffee topped with whipped cream.

      ...

      But Aroma remains the most innovative, incorporating a flourishing food business serving unusual sandwiches such as turkey and red cabbage.

      It was founded by Michael Zur Szpiro, a Swiss national, in 1991. He had seen the success of American chains such as Starbucks and believed there was an opportunity for a similar chain in Britain.

    4. Mesure, Susie (2002-02-19). "Caffé Nero pays McDonald's £3.5m for Aroma chain". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      Caffé Nero edged past Coffee Republic yesterday to become Britain's largest independent coffee bar operator with the purchase of 26 Aroma sites from McDonald's, the fast-food giant.

      The Italian-styled chain is believed to have paid about £3.5m for the Aroma units, which McDonald's bought for £10.5m in 2000. The deal, expected to complete next month, will give Caffé Nero 107 outlets, just ahead of Coffee Republic's 105.

    5. Church, Emily (2002-05-10). "Caffé Nero sizes up U.K. coffee market". MarketWatch. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      Caffé Nero (CFN), the No. 3 chain in the U.K., with 108 outlets, just closed its acquisition of McDonald's MCD, -0.91% Aroma coffee chain in the U.K.

      Caffé Nero is expected to pay around £2.45 million ($3.6 million) for the 31 stores, or around £80,000 an outlet. In the end, including the £60,000 Caffé Nero will spend, on average, to make over the Aromas, Caffé Nero will end up paying less than the average cost of around £200,000 to start from scratch. A new Starbucks outlet is estimated to cost at least a third more, on average.

    6. "Caffe Nero to buy Aroma sites". BBC. 2002-02-18. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      Italian-styled coffee bar chain Caffe Nero says it has signed a preliminary agreement to buy 26 Aroma coffee bars from McDonalds.

      ...

      No details of what Caffe Nero expects to pay for the 26 outlets, which form part but not all of the Aroma chain, were given.

    7. Walsh, Dominic (1999-03-26). "McDonald's buys Aroma - Takeover". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      MCDONALD'S, the world's largest fast food operator with more than 24,800 restaurants in 115 countries, has acquired Aroma, the 23-strong London cafe chain, with a view to developing it into a national - possibly even an international - brand.

      ...

      Aroma, which was founded in 1991 by Michael Zur-Szpiro, a Swiss management consultant, will continue to operate under a separate brand and management team. David Gerrard, group accountant for McDonald's UK, is to become managing director of Aroma.

      ...

      While the burger group's 930 UK restaurants have annual sales of Pounds 1.2 billion, Aroma has a turnover of about Pounds 10 million, generating cash of Pounds 1 million and breaking even at the bottom line. McDonald's, which has plans for 100 new burger restaurants in the UK this year, reckons that there is scope for a further 250 cafes.

    8. Teather, David (1999-03-26). "The Guardian: Big Mac firm in cappuccino takeaway". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      McDONALD'S, the burger restaurateur, has paid A10 million for Aroma, a chain of coffee shops established eight years ago by a Swiss businessman living in London.

      Michael Zur-Szpiro founded his first cafe in Dean Street, Soho, in 1990 with backing from venture capital firm Apax Partners. The founder retained around 10 per cent of the company prior to the sale and finds his name added to the growing list of coffee millionaires.

      ...

      The acquisition is the first time McDonald's has bought another chain outside the US with the aim of developing it as a separate brand.

      The burger chain will keep the Aroma name and hopes to expand the concept nationwide. There are now 23 branches in the London area.

    9. Packer, Charlotte (1995-03-24). "One more cup of coffee - Caf life began in London, not Paris. Now, reports Charlotte Packer, it's here again". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      Michael Zur-Szpiro saw the gap in the market, found a sympathetic backer and in January 1991, as the recession peaked, the first Aroma coffee bar opened its doors. The electric yellow interiors are now a familiar sight across the West End.

      The philosophy, says Zur-Szpiro, is to "offer people a 15-minute holiday in the sun. The caf is the new pub, an unpretentious and unpressured plac:e to meet. Cafs are a natural part of society in Europe. Why not here?"

    10. Clark, Andrew (2002-02-18). "McDonald's sells after £20m latte loss". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      McDonald's has called time on its disastrous foray into coffee bars by selling most of the Aroma chain to Caffe Nero after losing more than £20m on the venture in three years.

      The American fast-food empire is selling 26 of its 35 Aroma outlets for less than £5.5m, having paid £10.5m for the chain two years ago and spent £17m attempting to revive its fortunes.

      Caffe Nero said McDonalds had failed to keep a lid on costs at the chain, employing too many staff and paying extravagant prices for supplies.

      ...

      McDonald's put Aroma up for sale in August last year but failed to find anyone willing to buy all 35 sites.

      The other nine will be sold off individually.

    11. McClary, Samantha (2002-02-21). "Caffe Nero Sniffs Out 26 Aroma Purchases". The Caterer. Vol. 191, no. 4210. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      Caffé Nero would not disclose what it was to pay for the Aroma sites but said it expected to complete the purchase in March. The new additions will increase its chain to 107 shops. However, Caffé Nero will not be using the Aroma name. McDonald's still has 10 Aroma shops.

      Jeremy Simmons, director of restaurant and leisure property consultant Berkeley Simmons Davis, valued the deal at about £2m. He said that he would be amazed if Caffé Nero paid more than £120,000 for each of the Aromas it bought.

    12. Walsh, Dominic (2002-02-19). "Nero's empire grows with Aroma deal - Coffee bar shake-up". The Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes;

      CAFFE NERO may be a fraction of the size of McDonald's but its acquisition of the majority of the fast food group's Aroma cafes suggests that it is rather better at running upmarket espresso bars.

      ...

      With conversion costs of about Pounds 70,000 a site, analysts reckon McDonald's will receive less than Pounds 3.5 million for what are likely to be among the best Aroma sites. In 1999, McDonald's paid an estimated Pounds 10 million for the business, since when it has invested heavily in expanding from 23 units to 35. In December it took a charge of $45 million (Pounds 32 million) against its pre-tax profits, much of which related to the value of Aroma.

      One of the factors in McDonald's decision to sell up was its acquisition last year of a 33 per cent stake in Pret A Manger, the sandwich bar chain that is also a big seller of coffee. But there is little doubt that it also underestimated the difficulty of turning the struggling Aroma brand around in the face of stiff competition from Costa, Starbucks, Coffee Republic and Caffe Nero.

    13. Wendlandt, Astrid (2001-09-05). "Companies & Finance UK: Caffe Nero eyes McDonald's Aroma sites". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      McDonald's appointed SG Hambro last month to sell the Aroma brand name along with its 33 coffee bars. However, analysts said potential buyers such as Caffe Nero would be interested in cherry-picking the chain's stores that would best fit their geographic spread.

      One analyst said: "Aroma may have to be dismembered and Caffe Nero would not be the only one seeking to buy some of its outlets."

      Interested peers would include Coffee Republic and Costa. McDonald's is understood to be seeking about Pounds 15m for the Aroma sites and name. However, Davis Coffer Lyons, the food and beverage estate agents, estimated the aggregate value of Aroma leases would be worth only Pounds 5m.

      McDonald's acquired Aroma in 1998 for Pounds 10m to capitalise on the fast growth of the London coffee bar market. But the US company later acquired a 33 per cent stake in Pret a Manger, which created a overlap with Aroma.

      Analysts said Caffe Nero, which had Pounds 7m in cash at the end of May, would be stretched to buy the whole Aroma chain. It would also frustrate its plans to expand outside London.

    14. Murray-West, Rosie (2002-04-03). "The Daily Telegraph: Caffe Nero steams into third place". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      Yesterday Caffe Nero, one of the two UK quoted players in the sector (the other is Coffee Republic), took control of the Aroma chain - formerly owned by McDonald's. The deal catapults them to third place in the market, behind Costa, and of course Starbucks.

      ...

      It is rebranding the Aroma chain as Neros, which chairman Gerry Ford says will take only eight days per store and cost around pounds 60,000 per site. Nero has a stronger brand than Aroma.

      The Aroma deal takes debt to pounds 9m, but the group is very cash-generative and the Aroma stores should help. It also recently secured pounds 5m of extra funding.

    15. Kipphoff, John (2002-02-19). "Companies & Finance UK: Hint of Aroma cheers Caffe Nero". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      The UK's hotly-contested market for espresso, latte, and other premium coffees yesterday lost one of its early participants as McDonald's sold its Aroma chain to Caffe Nero.

      Caffe Nero, which said it was "cherry picking" 26 of the 35 Aroma outlets, claimed that following the transaction, it would be the UK's largest independent coffee bar chain, overtaking Coffee Republic.

      The Aroma deal came as Caffe Nero reported a jump in interim sales and narrowed losses. In the six months to November 30, the chain's sales rose by 68 per cent to Pounds 11.3m, while the pre-tax loss dropped to Pounds 760,000 (Pounds 868,000).

    16. Ritson, Alex (2001-08-27). "McDonalds to sell Aroma". BBC. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

      The article notes:

      American fast-food chain McDonalds is to sell its up-market Aroma coffee shop chain in the UK.

      The 35 Aroma coffee shops are expected to fetch over $20m (£15m).

      ...

      The $14.5m investment by McDonalds in Aroma in 1999 was then seen as an attempt to diversify out of burgers.

      ...

      These healthy sandwich bars also sell coffee so Aroma's specialist coffee bars appear to have become surplus to McDonalds requirements.

      Added to this the coffee market in the UK is chronically overcrowded.

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment in multiple AfDs, you have been using form letter template "There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow (fill in the blank) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and dumping a long list of references, but you haven't been making any improvements to the article itself with those sources. Graywalls (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I had the time to both find sources and rewrite every article at every AfD I participate in. But I do not. Cunard (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that participants in AFD discussions are then somehow obligated to edit articles, nor should there be. North America1000 08:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject received non-routine coverage between 1991 and 2002 in news articles that provide analysis of the company. Aroma was purchased by McDonald's in 1999. That Aroma had the distinction of being the first acquisition outside the United States that McDonald's wanted to develop as a separate brand makes Aroma not routine or run-of-the-mill.

    A 1991 Financial Times article provided a detailed profile and analysis of the company.

    A 1996 Sunday Times article noted, "[A list of companies] have all entered the thriving coffee-shop market. ... Aroma remains the most innovative, incorporating a flourishing food business serving unusual sandwiches such as turkey and red cabbage."

    A 1999 Sunday Times article noted, "The Aroma chain of shops was struggling against competitors but a turnround specialist made it attractive to the burger giant" (McDonald's).

    A 1999 The Guardian article noted, "The acquisition is the first time McDonald's has bought another chain outside the US with the aim of developing it as a separate brand."

    A 2002 The Guardian article noted, "McDonald's has called time on its disastrous foray into coffee bars by selling most of the Aroma chain to Caffe Nero after losing more than £20m on the venture in three years."

    Cunard (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article McDonald's only owned a small share of the company and it's current parent company is Freddo. Which is neither Caffe Nero, nor does it seem to have a Wikipedia article. So, neither of those are viable merge options. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article had some errors. McDonald's owned Aroma Café in its entirety between 1999 and early 2002. McDonald's sold the UK branches to Caffè Nero in 2002 and the Argentine branches to the ice cream chain Freddo in 2004. In the UK, Caffè Nero rebranded Aroma Café to the name Neros in 2002, while in Argentina, Freddo was still operating Aroma under that brand name as of this 2018 article in La Nación.

Based on this, I consider McDonald's and Caffè Nero to be reasonable merge targets if Aroma Café is determined not to be notable because the UK Aroma branches were last owned by Caffè Nero.

Cunard (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going by your analysis of how McDonald's sold it multiple companies in multiple countries though, only a small part of the article, directly related to it, would be worth merging to the Caffé Nero article. The rest isn't really relevant. Personally I don't think it would be worth it, because you could just as easily rewrite that one part of the article into Caffé Nero that you'd needlessly be merging the whole thing for. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
McDonald's sold 31 of its 35 Aroma outlets to Caffé Nero (which rebranded Aroma to Neros), while the remaining four outlets were individually sold. The majority of Aroma is a part of Caffé Nero so Caffé Nero is a strong merge target. McDonald's also is a merge target for discussion of McDonald's management of Aroma.

I substantially expanded the article with the sources, so I would prefer that Aroma Café remain a standalone article to present an overview of Aroma's history in one place. This is preferable to merging some material about Aroma Café to Caffé Nero and some to McDonald's.

Cunard (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. TheImaCow (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although there does seem to be some coverage about the company, it seems to all be about mergers. Which according to NCORP is trivial coverage. that doesn't establish notability. and rightly so IMO. A company isn't necessarily notable for being bought or sold, because acquisitions are pretty run of the mill in the corporate world. Even if a company like McDonald's is involved in it. There is no notability by association. Also, An article that just says "the company was bought by McDonald's, who then sold it to Caffe Nero" Wouldn't be much of an article. There doesn't seem to be anything else about them though. Which is also why I'm not voting merge, because there isn't anything to merge. Plus, right now it's not owned by either McDonald's or Caffe Nero anyway and there isn't an article about it's current parent company to merge it with. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Id love to know what in the article you think would be important to cultural history scholars. Let alone how that reading would fit with any guideline for what qualifies as a notable article. Especially consider even with the article expanded its still mostly extremely trivial run of the mill information that would fit any conpany. Seeds funding rounds, what the founder of coffee in the UK etc etc. Non of that is culturally important. This isnt a encyclopedia mainly for scholars or marketers anyway though even if it was and a general audience doesn't care about that stuff. Adamant1 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 It is a very good question! There is a correlation between coffee shops and urban gentrification. The opening of coffe shops and more generally Starbucks is a leading indicator of gentrification. There is a quite large litterature about this phenomenon. See How to Know If Your Neighborhood Is Being Gentrified, A Brief History of the Coffee Shop as a Symbol for Gentrification, or Filtered: Coffee, the Café and the 21st-Century City. Full Discosure: I always disagree with Cunard, it is the first time ever we agree on something. I don't like reference bombings. Wikipedia is not Google. I also use special care with articles related to existing brands, companies, living persons to avoid advertising or spinning. Finally, I agree with you if the article is kept it must be tagged with copy edit. I make typos and mistakes when I write, but it is not a justufication to write a poor article. Articles should be always correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent. Postconfused (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, totally. Especially if it is a coffee shop related to a church or religious organization. It's the new imperialism. I have a theory that most churches will become glorified coffee shops eventually. Generally though, I don't think anything on the academic/research level can be obtained from Wikipedia articles in that or any other respect. Except maybe as clearing house to find sources. Wikidata is much better for those types of things though IMO. There's also some research being done with OpenStreetMap to a similar end. So, that's my opinion on it. I'm a lot more fundamentalist then some other people when it comes to sticking to a clear line with notability though. Especially when it comes to articles about companies. As they are kind of their own animal and are two often victims of screwiness and extremely bad quality editing. Also, to often it seems like sources are payed or have other shady weird connections to the companies. And it's hard to determine what the average reader will want to read about them. So, I rather air on the caution by sticking to the guidelines. A few weeks ago my favorite bands article had an AfD. I had to suck it up and see it get deleted because I couldn't make a good case for notability. That's life sometimes. Better then the alternative. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD, as per a review of sources. Furthermore, articles about the company are not all simply routine coverage about mergers. As a side note, sorry, but in my view, determinations about notability should not be made based upon what the sources "seem" to be covering. Such determinations should be made upon what the sources actually state. North America1000 08:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost half of it is though. Another 1/4th is glorified bio about the founder. I'm not against that stuff per say, but it shouldn't comprise most or a good portion of the article. If you were to do a break down, it would be 1/4 founder bio, 2/4 merger, 1/4th founding and something about a building. I don't think any of that fits with WP:NCORP. All those things are specifically called out in it's trivial coverage section. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because enough sources have been presented here which established notability. Beritagsier (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep article has significantly improved, now definitely passes WP:GNG. Dwaro (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 23:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voltz Clarke Gallery[edit]

Voltz Clarke Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet our notability requirements of companies, WP:NCORP. There is no in-depth coverage in reliable sources.

We have https://www.toryburch.com/blog-post/blog-post.html?bpid=132091 a blog, by a fashion label, not a reliable source.

https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/bradley-sabin-flower-ceramics makes a brief mention: "On October 8 his latest botanical beauties go on view in New York City, at the Voltz Clarke gallery’s new Upper East Side location voltzclarke.com, promising the space a fabulously fresh start."

https://www.vogue.com/article/the-feminine-mystique-natasha-laws-works-of-art-on-view-at-maxmara-los-angeles has half a sentence on the subject: "We all got on so well and the idea of putting on a show out here just kind of grew,” says Law, who worked on both shows with Manhattan gallerist Blair Voltz Clarke."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/holland-cunningham-at-vol_b_9685480 is by a huffpost contributor Madelaine D’Angelo the CEO of Arthena an art invement advisory firm, NOT an independent, reliable source

https://www.thecut.com/2017/06/landon-nordeman-first-looks-exhibit-at-voltz-clarke-gallery.html dedicates an entire sentence to the subject: " The new exhibition “First Looks,” on view at Voltz Clarke Gallery in New York, is the first showcase devoted to his fashion work." Vexations (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No consensus for a merge or redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction set in Bend, Oregon[edit]

List of fiction set in Bend, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, non-notable works by (mostly) non-notable authors. HalJor (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HalJor (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of fiction set in Oregon, although I'm not sure there's much worth merging. There isn't sufficient scope for a list of fiction set in Bend specifically. WP:LISTN is not met. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm changing my !vote to delete based on the comments below. Nothing worth merging and not a particularly plausible search term, so no sense in keeping a redirect. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of fiction set in Oregon as a somewhat plausible search term. Do not merge, the content is entirely unsourced. Hog Farm (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only is the content entirely unsourced, making it inappropriate to merge anywhere, but none of the actual entries here appear to be at all notable. Several of them, in fact, are simply self-published books. Rorshacma (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and probably non notable. I don't think it would make a useful search term so I'm not supporting a redirect. Ajf773 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable intersection article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 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) 02:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fati N'Zi-Hassane[edit]

Fati N'Zi-Hassane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The article contains many citations, but they are all either passing mentions or not independent coverage. The one decent source is this article from the Ghana Guardian, but that alone is not sufficient for GNG. My Google search does not turn up any better sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 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) 02:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Bladium[edit]

Denver Bladium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced (WP:GNG) and promotional (WP:PROMO) for over a decade. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an unsourced article. It is high time we stopped allowing any of these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Hi SportingFlyer: part of your nomination is not valid. See WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's Notability guideline page, where it states, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". In other words, an article that lacks sources can still potentially meet GNG requirements is such sources simply exist. They do not have to be present in the article. North America1000 09:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a before search as always, I'm just highlighting the absolute lack of sources in this article. Could also have gone with a fails WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 23 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) 02:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Eldridge[edit]

Stanley Eldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable enough for an article. Probualy fails WP:NBIO. The second reference is just a link to the production company - RichT|C|E-Mail 19:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha! That made me laugh, John! Dflaw4 (talk) 23:24, 22 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) 02:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Genser[edit]

Gillian Genser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E. The page cites major sources all from late 2018/early 2019 when she reported her poisoning. Searches in Canadian and American media are unable to find any other notability or mention of her. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I came across this BBC video about Genser and thought it was an interesting story. Once I saw that the Washington Post and CBC were covering her, too, I started the article. Typically if you see articles about someone in three sources like that, it's a pretty sure bet that they're going to be notable. But it's true that not a whole lot has surfaced other than those. I'll defer to others as to the right way to go. It still seems weird that we can't find anything other than the some of the highest-profile sources -- like, did she work under a different name before or something? Will keep searching. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not seeing a darn thing aside from the poisoning. No shows, no museums, no mentions. I agree that seeing the WaPo, CBC and BBC coverage initally portends notability: there is a simply staggering amount of high-quality coverage of the poisoning. But nowhere in a search did I find any mention of her every having had an exhibition, a dealer, a review or any other typical indicators that point to someone being a professional artist. I could not even find an event announcement that said she was having a show anywhere. This is WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS to me, as it is essentially a news story about a non-notable artist who got blood poisoning. There is zero evidence that she has any kind of art career in the public sphere whatsoever.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically just a one event coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to an an article about the Adam sculpture per WP:SIGCOV, WP:ATD-R, and WP:BIO1E. TJMSmith (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture has never been shown, as far as I can find in an extensive search. We don't have articles on artworks that have never been shows or recognized in the art world, do we?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple notes: Presumably TJMSmith means to rename or retitle/reframe rather than redirect (redirect presumes there's already an article). But also, we can satisfy GNG or NARTIST. As an artist it doesn't seem like she qualifies, but whether someone shows anything anywhere is irrelevant to GNG. All that matters is the coverage. Of course, that assumes that she meets GNG. Probably the best case (which isn't to say a compelling case) is perhaps to frame in terms of the sculpture or in terms of e.g. "Poisoning of Gillian Genser" or something. Still a difficult case to make, though, given most of the coverage is from a relatively narrow span of time. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I see where you are going there, but as a standalone article this is just a news story about an amateur artist with zero professional recognition who was poisoned by her work. If we could find an article about the occupational hazards of art making (it's a thing, source, source, source, source, source for "Painter's Colic", source), then it would be appropriate to include her story as part of the broader subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 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 delete. Very clear consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juan (street protester)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Juan (street protester) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a clear BLP1E, a biography of a living person known for only one thing. The sources are two local alternative newspapers. The article was prodded soon after its creation in 2007, then sent to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan, crazy screaming guy and kept with the closer advocating a rename; it had already been moved to Juan (homeless man) the day after it was nominated. Seeing the article mentioned at a Wikipedia criticism forum, I searched for sources and found no indication he has achieved enduring notability (people have asked in forums such as reddit what happened to him, and this 2014 blog entry in The Urbanist gives a detail the article doesn't have, that he used to eat lunch in Nordstrom's, but also describes him as no longer seen on the streets. That is a brief mention of him as an example. The "Street Asylum" article that is our first reference, which I found at a different URL and date during my search, has him as its primary focus (and also includes his lunches) but again as an example. There is no scope for expanding the article into a proper biography, and it does not appear he has either continued to attract coverage (compare for example Larry Hogue, whom we mention at 96th Street (Manhattan)) or become known for anything else, and he does not appear to have been covered by a major newspaper, so under BLP, I do not believe we should violate this man's privacy any further by keeping this article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. The primary complaint here is that he does not have "enduring notability". Wikipedia doesn't require enduring notability, in fact endorsing the opposite. Once notable, always notable. This person was a regional fixture for a significant amount of time - that's why the coverage is regional. You can disparage the sources as simply "alternative newspapers" but the writers, editors, and publishers of those papers are major figures in journalism that have won Pulitzer awards for biographies and write for New York Times. The Stranger ís a major paper in Seattle. While it appears that his notable time is in the past; it is Wikipedia's job to document the past. BLP1E refers to singular events, not long term fixtures. (From everything locals know, but not published, this isn't a BLP anymore.) SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per this source and this one, and all the other sources. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 01:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:BLP "human dignity": unverifiable claims that the subject is dead are clearly of no relevance here, any more than they are in any other policy-based argument. This sort of vacuous crap may apparently have been acceptable in a 2007 Wikipedia, but it doesn't belong in a 2020 one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary, "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested," and Yngvadottir's well-reasoned deletion rationale explains why a reevaluation is needed here. Whatever the standards were when this article was written, it does not meet today's notability requirements, which have since been strengthened to ensure a high standard for biographical articles, which are not met here. Simply put, the existing sources do not provide enough detail for a proper biographical article (we don't even know the subject's name!) even assuming that an argument could be made that they are exempt from WP:BLP1E. Run-of-the-mill local coverage is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG requirements. 28bytes (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the purposes of BLP1E and GNG, I don't think mentions in local alternative weeklies counts as significant coverage in reliable sources. This isn't coverage in the Times, Post, Globe, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and User:David Fuchs. - Darwinek (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:TROUT or worse the article creator. jps (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as little more than a hit job on someone who neither deserves or wants an article. Also per ජපස, as one couldn't, frankly, do more to hasten the day, etc., than defend this WP:BOLLOCKS. serial # 14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources are insufficient to establish notability for a BLP. Only one is about Juan. Three others only mention him in passing or in minor detail. One is a deadlink that points to a 2002 article about cycling, not sure why it's there. ♟♙ (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a local level street protestor who has gained passing notice from the press but nothing in the way of significant coverage. The fact we do not know his name is as I think about this more and more a bigger and bigger problem. This in many ways comes down to an attack article against someone who probably has a mental illness. The source is not even the main paper of record for the local area. Wikipedia should not be in the practice of perpetuating poor journalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Poorly sourced, sources of dubious utility (not even giving his name!), limited local interest only, BLP issues, etc. Carrite (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Before it was fixed up, it was a borderline A10. Per Carrite, 28Bytes, DavidFuchs, and nom.... No need to keep this cruel monument. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 20:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A local issue that has not much coverage.Nika2020 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all but one of the above. Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia, not a midway sideshow. Qwirkle (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems an overtone from 4-chan /b/ culture from c 13 years ago. We have had BLP since; this seems to have slipped through the net. It might be an idea to look at other articles the original "author" has created in the past. We have copyright investigations, why not grossly offensive, near trolling, BLP shattering investigations. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. The sole "keep" Interpretation that our notability criteria confers infinite notability is grossly wrong. The notability criteria is that topics will have lasting notability regardless of their coverage here. This topic fails our notability criteria now, in the past and in the future. I also echo the concern that this is possibly a trolling article. Snow delete. ConstantPlancks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointing and laughing at the homeless isnt really a good look for Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:29, 22 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) 02:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Camila Cabello live performances[edit]

List of Camila Cabello live performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NTOURS this is a summarisation of many other articles - the concert pages and wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information. Much of the information on this page is covered/duplicated elsewhere or just generally doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion like this. It is also highly unlikely that users would know to search for this page. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 16:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 16:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per some sort of intersection of the spirit of NTOURS, INDISCRIMINATE, and “we’re an encyclopedia, not a fansite tracking an artists every public move”. (The article was a created by an editor with about 99% of their edits being related to this musician, and their user name is even an allusion to the artist, making it all the more clear that this is a “super-fan creating a shrine to a musician” type endeavor.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This content can be summarized in prose in the subject's article without harm. All of the previous comments also apply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems more fancruft than anything else, tracking every move with no neccesity. Most of those live performances could be included in songs, tours and albums respective articles. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, nominator's reason for deletion is that this list doesn't meet WP:NTOURS, and? this is a list, the relevant guideline is WP:LISTN ie. are there sources that discuss this group/partial group of entries/ does the list "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes"?, not whether each tour has received significant independent coverage. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whilst the topics of the list might have received coverage from reliable sources but that is already noted on their individual pages or the artists' bio page. Therefore this renders this list indiscriminate and ultimately doesn't explain why this needs to be in existence when it duplicates information already listed elsewhere. Additionally this level of detail could consitute WP:FANCRUFT → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I was the one who originally tied NTOURS to this, in another discussion. I wasn’t trying to directly cite NTOURS, just tried to liken it’s general sentiment with handling such an article, of which there’s isn’t much of a direct precedent for. NTOURS says that we should only have standalone tour articles when there is significant coverage on its conception, creation, reception, etc. Substantial content, not just a set list and a venue list, and a couple sources that say “Hey, artist X announced the Y tour”. My point was that this list resembles more of the latter than the former, which is not okay if it were strictly a tour article. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but there’s plenty of relevant WP:NOT issues here as well, as previously mentioned. Sergecross73 msg me 03:34, 22 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) 02:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Hjerpe[edit]

Jake Hjerpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person seems to be not notable as per WP:NBIO and/or WP:NSPORT. Claims are not supported by any WP:RELIABLE sources ~Amkgp ✉ 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Ships in a Calm Sea[edit]

Dutch Ships in a Calm Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet notability criteria. Searches in English, at least, do not reveal any articles or mention of the work independent of its creator, and the sole source used in the article is its page in the website of the museum within which it is held. No longer support deletion, per reasons outlined below. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what are the ground rules for Notablity of artworks? Are there specific rules, separate from GNG? --Theredproject (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other than GNG, I believe that any work of art collected by a national gallery is default notable. A national gallery is the artistic version of an encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also sources discussing this work and related pieces as masterpieces of Dutch painting, so it passes GNG. Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have added the Rijksmuseum entry as a reference for this particular painting and adjusted the National Gallery reference (previously for another painting) to support the biographical info. Collection in a major national gallery is sufficient for notability. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per previous comments. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above comments. I believe the artwork should be considered notable.Aven13 16:05, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 23:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winifred Freedman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Winifred Freedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage doesn't rise very far above mere mentions. The prior AfD was overturned as move to draft instead of deletion due to the close emphasizing the article's status as an unsourced BLP as opposed to a consensus in the discussion, but I'm not seeing how this meets WP:GNG. The vast majority of listed roles appear to be exceedingly minor, so the subject doesn't have a particularly strong claim to WP:NACTOR either. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Keep: Just to add to the nominator's comments about the history of this AfD, following the review it was suggested that the article be worked on and could then be moved to the mainspace, such that a fresh AfD could occur to resolve the unresolved question of notability—which is what I did. The nominator has now called for a fresh AfD, which I think is appropriate, because notability is not clear-cut in this case. In terms of my vote, I basically echo what I said at the last AfD—I think WP:NACTOR is made out, with some main roles in plays and a couple of notable roles in TV programs; but the case for WP:GNG is weaker. However, I think more sources could probably be found. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Based on the sources that have been identified in this AfD, I believe the subject has a real shot at WP:GNG. While there is no one in-depth article dedicated to the subject, the cumulative effect of the reviews and praise she has received over a significant period of time shows, in my opinion, a sufficient level of notability which would justify an article. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weak keep - I usually avoid the actor AFDs--I think it's hard to discern the true notability of character actors with decades of professional experience. I also echo Cardiffbear88 and John Pack Lambert, and don't think Wikipedia should be a mirror of IMDB, even if I trust Wikipedia much more. Having said that, this character actor had memorable--and therefore significant (in my opinion)--roles in The Last American Virgin, Naked Gun, and The Fabulous Baker Boys. She also was a cast member of Joanie Loves Chachi, which for decades was shorthand for notorious TV bomb/worst show ever. I also agree with Rosguill that there aren't a lot of sources to be found. I think Wikipedia, if possible, should better define how to treat character actors. Caro7200 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Invitation to John Pack Lambert, Bearian, IphisOfCrete and TonyTheTiger, who participated in the first AfD a couple of weeks ago, to take part in this one (if they wish). Dflaw4 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no way this passes GNG. LA Weekly is not generally considered a supewr reliable source, and when almost all sources are from one localized publication we are not really seeing demonstration of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whilst sources have been found by Dflaw4, I’m not convinced these help to establish notability. Two mention the subject only by name as part of theatre reviews. One, a local source, is a one-paragraph name check that mentions one of the subject’s TV credits. Almost all of the existing article content is unreferenced, with no evidence of sources that could verify it, and and in the absence of such sources, it must be deleted. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Cardiffbear88, it completely slipped my mind to ping you, the original nominator, for this AfD, which I should have done. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am also unsure that the LA Times source is the proper Winifred Freedman. It is unlikely that at age 29, she played an 8-year-old. I reassert my AFD1 arguments.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Dflaw4. I found and added two reviews that speak of her performances in theater work. I found her mentioned in a number of other articles, but as I imagine those would be viewed as passing mentions, I did not add them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • DiamondRemley39 thanks for finding these. I would still question whether local theatre reviews, presumably not focusing largely on the subject’s contribution, would indicate notability - especially as the majority of the article’s current content is unsourced and based on her minor roles in TV and film work. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. The sources, from "local productions" (in Los Angeles, a major theatre hub), are from reliable secondary sources (such as the Los Angeles Times), and contribute to the case of notability, though no, they may not bring her past the threshold of it. That's why I went weak keep. Had there been more reviews found, or some LA theatre awards won, I'd not have qualified with "weak." They do mention her work and not just a little in comparison with the work of others in the productions. Notability is one thing and unsourced minor film and tv credits another. They could and probably should be removed, but that is the stuff of talk pages, not AfD. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very minor in most cases. I don't think unnamed roles in single episodes of shows or films contribute to notability. Examples: Nurse #4, Girlfriend, Ticket Taker, Bad Singer, Pit Recorder, Operator, Pharmacist, Chief's Secretary, Lunch Lady, Facilities Coordinator. --Kbabej (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone here said they did. Not every word in articles must contribute to notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources do not amount to sigcov. The Design for Living ref is literally a sentence mention in a regional paper; the others are similar. The San Bernardino County Sun ref is at least a paragraph (instead of a single sentence), but it is for a non-notable event and isn't about her work. I echo Johnpacklambert who stated on another recent AfD Wikipedia should not be an IMDB mirror. --Kbabej (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: More sources: here, here, here, and here (my apologies if any of them overlap with DiamondRemley39's sources). Also, from a ProQuest article regarding her performance in Found a Peanut ("Cracking Open Peanuts: Exploring Jewish Identity and the Theatre of the Holocaust in Donald Margulies's Found a Peanut" by Joshua Robert Horowitz, 2015, at page 20):
    "Overall it appears that reviews either fall in love with the character and plot line of Margulies’s play, or find it very troublesome. Throughout the history of the play’s productions, two patterns seem to evolve. In the reviews often times Joanie and Little Earl stick out as the characters whose actors tend to shine. The New York Time reviewer Frank Rich favourably mentioned Peter MacNichol as Little Earl in the New York City debut, and, in a review of a Los Angeles production, Sylvie Drake mentioned Winifred Freedman standing out as Joanie." Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I just added those, except for the Proquest article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, DiamondRemley39! I certainly think there is more to this actress than meets the eye. With further digging, this could be a well-sourced article. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just commenting that I looked at the sources provided by Dflaw4 in their most recent top-level comment and I think that we're still short of GNG. Each has at most a sentence or two mentioning the subject acting in a role. I don't see how you could write an article based on these sources without resorting to synthesis. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a rare case where notability is subjective. Her roles were substantial enough to pass WP:NACTOR, although many source are lost now because they were pre-Internet. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 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 move to draft. Spartaz Humbug! 23:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerenityOS[edit]


SerenityOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find no mention of it anywhere as being a legitimate Operating System. It seems to be a hobby project on github. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SerenityOS has many contributors and although it is not an Operating System used by thousands, it does include all the features of an operating system. What you might consider legitimate is completely subjective. There is definitely interest in this operating system. People other than the original creator have added a disassembler, a debuggger, and a web browser to it. Mind you these are not port or copying existing code, rather original code of an entirely new web browser, and an entirely javascript engine all from scratch. This no small feat and at this point in time the number of devs working on this project is more than a couple people as a hobby. Even this article which has exists for less than 1 hour has already been translated to German. Sysrpl (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TempleOS is not a proper OS too, but it has its own Wikipedia article and there's no issue with that, it seems. SerenityOS has contributors, funding, information, quick availability (installing it and running a dev-build is easy) and it has a awful lot of more features. It can already be used for quite a lot of stuff. I do believe it's a legitimate OS. Also active in development and growing fast. Zlotny (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC) — Zlotny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@ User:Sysrpl I find this quick translation to spanish to be very suspiciuos. How did a dormant account with 2 edits find this article within 30 minutes of its creation and translated it as well in that time. After which he goes dormant once again. There are no Reliable sources that discuss this project or OS as you call it, in depth. No sources, no article. Other stuff exists is not a valid rationale for inclusion. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite Because I have an interest is software development and wrote the article then posted the link to the article to the SerenityOS community. This was before you started the AfD. I guess people are interested enough to post here about it. Do you think my secret plan was to create this wikipedia account 10+ years ago for the purpose of being a sock puppet? Sysrpl (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ MistyGraceWhite I'm an active developer on the Operating System along with other dozens of people and it reached to me that a wiki page was written. So i searched for it, found it, and translated. While I was doing that it got marked for deletion, which later brought me here. Also, a "dormant" account is not a valid one to contribute to wikipedia? I'm not active here but I don't think that's a valid reason to see an article creation/translation/edit sketchy. Zlotny (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite Regarding no reliable sources that discuss this project, it is regularly featured on ycombinator, and also has many articles written about it on the web here and here https://hackaday.com/tag/serenityos/ https://hackersonlineclub.com/serenity-graphical-unix-like-operating-system/ ... i can find articles all over. Does it have to come from forbes.com to reach your level of notability? Sysrpl (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Building an operating system and all its related components from scratch is a monumental effort, and I believe it shows best on Andreas's YouTube page: Despite producing rather niche content appealing only to a rather small subset of programmers interested in OS level development projects like this, Andreas has managed to amass over 7200 subscribers and over 480,000 cumulative views on his YouTube channel. [1] These really are significant figures for a 'hobby project'. Andreas has also stated his intention to eventually work on SerenityOS full time, once the project reaches a sufficient level of funding. He currently has 63 people sponsoring him with monthly contributions on the GitHub Sponsors program, [2] in addition to the 113 Patrons on Patreon. [3] I would argue that this level of financial support from this many people alone should be rather telling about just the level of excitement this project has brought to so many people around the world. Instead of deletion, I would propose that more citations are added to the page, as it seems to be lacking in that respect. vkoskiv (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC) — vkoskiv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@ vkoskiv I don't think linking to a Patreon donation page is appropriate. The SerenityOS article can be improved upon in many ways, but linking to donations should not be one of them Sysrpl (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ Sysrpl I wasn't suggesting that the citations I provided here should be added to the actual article. I was just citing them here to provide evidence of the significance of this project. If you feel that it's inappropriate to cite them even here, then that's fair and they should be removed. vkoskiv (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ Sysrpl Can you explain how you knew that the article had been translated to german at 13:07 when the german version went live at 16:27? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite I actually misspoke and meant to type Spanish. If someone already translated it to German, in addition to Spanish, then that only goes to show there are a lot of people who care enough about SerenityOS to translate it. And I don't speak or write German. Sysrpl (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite I am sure there might be some suspicion of 'sockpuppetry' going on from your perspective, perhaps reasonably so. What's going on is that multiple independent observers of this project are just excited that there is a page on Wikipedia being made. There has been a lot of talk today on the public #serenityos IRC channel on the FreeNode network about this, and that's why you are seeing so much activity here all of a sudden. I can vouch that all the people here, myself included, are just passionate about the project and want to share it with the world. Hopefully this explanation clears any potential suspicion. Vkoskiv (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on currently available coverage. None of the discursiveness above makes up for the fundamental point that there is not sufficient reliable, substantial coverage. Admittedly it's not far off - one or two serious treatments by the non-blogosphere, I'd say - but not with what's presented at this point. And seeing how involved the editor is with the project, I suspect that the sources collected now already represent the totality of what is available. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I, the editor, am not involved with the project. I write a lot of software, like many other people online, but have not contributed to the SerenityOS project at all other than writing the first draft of the article. I have no vested interest. I am aware of it, like many others, but that and the fact that I develop software does not automatically connect people to every software project on the Internet. Regarding awareness of this project, it frequently tops the news list on Y Combinator. There are many pages on the web that discuss the project, and your suspicion that all the current references represent the totality of what is available is easily proved [12] Sysrpl (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a "substantial treatment", it's a minimalist listing. Sources of this type are functionally useless for establishing notability. If there is better stuff (you know, actual articles where people discuss it in detail), please let's have them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a significant project with a significant following, and growing rapidly. If it is not "notable" enough for a Wikipedia article now, it very likely will be in a very short amount of time. I believe it makes most sense to keep this page. Vkoskiv (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)— Vkoskiv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sorry, not a valid consideration at all - see WP:CRYSTAL. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument; sources or no go. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Elmidae What part of that argument was 'invalid'? A source was provided as a link in the comment you replied to. 50 individual contributors to a hobby project on GitHub is significant.Vkoskiv (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not from the perspective of Wikipedia's requirements for demonstrated notability. The fundamental statement is this: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. 5 million views on YouTube do not make a song notable if the in-depth coverage is not there. Similarly, X number of commits or contributors on Github just do not figure into the decision. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish article looks good. This is the level of coverage that works. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Youtube page". YouTube. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
  2. ^ "Github Sponsors". Github. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
  3. ^ "Patreon page". Patreon. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable software product, and apparent WP:COI issues. ST47 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, coverage is not sufficient to meet GNG, there is one possible good source, but unfortunately that is not enough to establish notability. There is a possible COI or WP:UPE motive in the article's creation, and there is almost certainly one along with Sockpuppeteering in the Keep votes. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and Draftify Starting to pick up some coverage, but it is very limited and subject specific. Awesomekling, If this got 1 good source like a wired article then put together with the existing sources it would pass WP:GNG. If this is a work in progress then it could recieve more coverage as it develops and picks up users, then an article could be justified. Move it to draft space until this happens. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per WP:NOTJUSTYET - looks like it could have potential in the future for an article, but I'm unconvinced that significant reliable independent sources exist at present for anything beyond an article consistent of "this thing exists". Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:00, 24 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.
  • Delete. This is still not a relevant project and does not have any media coverage. --Gellopai (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago[edit]

List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long and poorly-referenced list of non-notable entities. Per WP:NOT a directory (especially a "simple listing") there is little or no sourced information attached to the list entries, no clear way to tell if the items actually belong on the list or if they have been added later by vandals. At WT:CATHOLIC#Lists of parishes, schools, religious on diocesan article pages we discussed the removal of such lists from diocesan articles per the above guidelines. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the following reasons:
1. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information states: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." - Several such lists in fact have the detail put into such context:
2. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools states: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body)." - In the United States most Catholic schools are directly operated by the archdiocese, so the archdiocese is the " school district authority" for these schools.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice is the essay/article guidelines advice for the Schools WikiProject and it states: "Non-notable school articles are generally blanked and redirected to the school district's article (USA)"
3. Practice is just as important of a consideration as what the policies and guidelines strictly say. Wikipedians have been listing "elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability" in these lists for over a decade, and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES means that the solution was to merge them into lists.
Also bear in mind this will need the input from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists projects. Because various topics intersect here, it is important to get feedback from a broad variety of Wikipedians.
Keep per WTM. I'll also note that the nom has valid concerns but that deletion is not for cleanup purposes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of every single thing that exists, and we certainly do not need to cross-categorise Catholic schools to a specific region. Ajf773 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the comment below regarding LISTN WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The archdiocese managed most (not all) Catholic schools, and makes the decision whether those that it does manage are closed (as is seen in the articles I cited). This is why the lists are by archdiocese. Now, for independent Catholic schools (those not operated by an archdiocese but merely associated with it) it may be a different manner. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the more reason to delete it. Linking a list of schools to a archdiocese (rather than a geographic location) fits well into the criteria of WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dioceses are geographically based: each American county is assigned to a diocese: Chicago's archdiocese covers Cook and Lake counties, so all Catholic schools in these two counties would be covered. This geographic organization is no different from the countywide public school districts (for example in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia) which have lists of their respective schools. Public school lists are already shown to be discriminate and to fulfill the gazeteer functions of this encyclopedia, and therefore fulfill the encyclopedic criteria. BTW school districts also don't necessarily operate every single public school in their boundaries due to the existence of charter schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I meant to say WP:LISTN instead. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I make lists of schools because Wikipedia does fulfill the purpose of being a gazetteer (this is stated in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)). LISTN states: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." I feel that listing Catholic schools fulfills the gazetteer function of Wikipedia. This is in addition to the reliable secondary source coverage on Catholic schools closing throughout the United States. The National Center for Education Statistics documents the K-12 schools in the U.S., and this is similar to the organizations listed at Gazetteer#United_States such as the United States Geological Survey for locations. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ajf773: Which says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." (in other words it is okay to use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when the comparison is correct and the essay page explains this). List of Pokemon is a featured article, so my point is that we do in fact list things not individually notable. The question is whether it is okay to list this particular group of individually non-notable things or not. I pinged since OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged."
  • What about article x? also explains "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." - But in this case List of Pokemon is now a featured article, not merely a random article created by somebody. The point I made is that lists of "non-notable" items are acceptable, and I explained above why there is an informational/educational purpose in this list.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I also realize there are fictional character lists like List of Animal Crossing characters and these lists have existed on WP for over a decade. When notability of a list is considered, one should make a case whether there is a proper informational purpose as per LISTN. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the best of this should be covered in an unwritten article on the history of education in the archdiocese. I'd assume there already is a list of high schools in the archdiocese. If not, pruning the article in question to that might make sense per WP:ATD, but if the lidt exists, I do not see it as a good redirect target. John from Idegon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John from Idegon: What would be a better redirect target for Catholic schools directly operated by an archdiocese? I feel that the archdiocese from a U.S. parochial Catholic school standpoint has the same role as a school district from a public school standpoint.
    • An example of a public school list I created was List of Houston Independent School District elementary schools, simply because I needed a common redirect target for HISD elementary schools, and because HISD operates so many of them. These "in archdiocese" ones are just Catholic versions of this one.
    • There's also a discussion of a similar list at Talk:List_of_Dallas_Independent_School_District_schools#Value_of_the_list,_in_general in regards to the listing of elementary schools, particularly the need for a redirect target.
    • The reasons why I created these lists: 1. The archdiocese's primary job is not to operate schools but to operate churches, so the details on school closings can't take too much WP:WEIGHT in a history section; these lists allow me to expand upon the schools more. 2. There are cases where either the elementary/K-8 school itself is notable, or the affiliated parish/church is notable (so the school redirects to the church). The notable schools should be listed too, but then the ordinary reader will expect to see the rest. 3. Schools can have additional details covered by newspapers that give a full history of what happened at the school: there have been cases of schools about to close, be given reprieves, and then get closed years later. It gives the reader a full picture of Catholic education and Catholicism in the archdiocese and the communities within it. Also 4. It allows me to put the lists in the jurisdiction of the schools and lists WikiProjects.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is exactly what lists are for and it fits well with the other entries in the Category:Lists of Catholic schools in the United States. Sourcing is appropriate already and additional sources have been added. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Add sources if needed. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:41, 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 procedural close. Article speedily deleted by Anthony Bradbury per A7. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zonic[edit]

Zonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any reference to this company online. Their website under external links did used to exist (according to the wayback machine). If nobody else can find a good source about them, I think this fails WP:NOTE Rotation4020 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:46, 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 delete. The author blanked the page, the article has been speedily deleted per WP:G7 by Boing! said Zebedee GirthSummit (blether) 14:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC) GirthSummit (blether) 14:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shazin Sharafuddeen[edit]

Shazin Sharafuddeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Going from the author's username, I believe this to be an autobiography. SIGNIF claim seems to be that they have created a piece of software; I can't find any sources giving significant depth to the subject of the article, and only press release-type stuff about the software. Fails GNG, borderline A7. GirthSummit (blether) 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:07, 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) 02:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SumAll[edit]

SumAll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about yet another unremarkable startup. Possibly paid-for spam. MER-C 14:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MER-C 14:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:52, 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. Sourced mention already in the USMNT article, which is all that is needed. Not seeing a consensus for a redirect to that specific section, but won't stand in anyone's way who wishes to create one. Fenix down (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jurgen Americans[edit]

Jurgen Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation: The Jurgen Americans players, toghether with the head coach Jurgen Klinsmann (from Germany), kicked off a German wave and shaped the history of U.S. national soccer team from 2011-2018. Jurgen Americans is not the first group in the long list of U.S. soccer players born outside the U.S., but they are the ones sparking the most vocal and widest criticism (women's national captain Abby Wambach and former U.S. coach Bruce Arena openly complained). Hence, there has been sustained coverage in every year from 2011-2018 (see the publication dates of the cited news) by reliable media, including the British and Australian press, on the Germanzied atmosphere of U.S. soccer and the complaints of non-U.S. born squad, though not all media necessarily use the term "Jurgen Americans". From this, I am happy to move the current article to United States men's national soccer team under Jurgen Klinsmann (though it would be heavily imbalanced, since most of the current content is on squad selection). Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Marr[edit]

Steve Marr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Pryer[edit]

Kathryn Pryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:34, 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. Ask me if you want a draft to.work on Spartaz Humbug! 23:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikenna Aniekwe[edit]

Ikenna Aniekwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. I did a Google search on all of the films mentioned in the article but didn't find any reliable coverage. 10 of the article's 15 sources are from the website nollywoodforever.com, an unreliable source. I did find a brief discussion about the 2010 film he directed titled The Liquid Black Gold. However, this isn't enough to warrant a separate article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of reliable primary sources to show that the subject passes the criteria fromWP:NACTOR. The reference "nollywoodforever.com" is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. December200 (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@December200: "nollywoodforever.com" is not the only source I listed. I have already removed most of them now, or should I remove everything from that particular website? MarkCarey911 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page should not be deleted because... Ikenna is a popular figure in the Nigerian film Industry. He is recognized nationwide as a top filmmaker who trained a lot of the filmmakers written about on wikipedia today. Like most of the Nigerian films released before 2009, they don't usually have a lot of listings in the media space beyond just those little mentions. @Versace1608: Should I remove the items without proper sources? Please, I do not think this page that I spent hours on should be deleted. MarkCarey911 (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkCarey911: Please read WP:AFDFORMAT before you comment in another AFD discussion. To answer your question, yes. Everything you add to Wikipedia must be backed by a reliable source. If you do not have a reliable source to support the info you want to add, do not add that info. You can request for the article to be userfied. This will allow you to continue to improve it if new sources become available. Alternatively, you can copied the article's content to your sandbox and improve it there.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608: okay, I hope to do better in my next article. But let me know what I can do to keep this one. Thanks MarkCarey911 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkCarey911: Thanks for improving the article's sourcing. I don't think there's much you can do at this time. Aniekwe just needs to produce and direct quality films that become big in Nigeria. It would be nice to see his films among the List of highest-grossing Nigerian films. Winning an AMVCA or AMAA accolade should also help him meet WP:NACTOR.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:27, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Focus FM (Ghana)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Focus FM (Ghana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a university campus radio station that lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in the article all fail one or more of "significant, "independent", or "reliable". As of this version of the article the sources are:

  1. directory entry which is not significant coverage
  2. directory entry which is not significant coverage
  3. rawgist.com does not appear to be a reliable source (see other entries from the same site below)
  4. rawgist.com - appears to be a press release; compare with the radio stations's about page and so not independent
  5. rawgist.com - article about the radio station's journalists winnning awards including John Essien winning an award; the byline for this article is "John Essien" so clearly not independent
  6. ghanaweb.com - this is a presss release (see bootm stating "Send your news stories to [email protected]") and so not independent
  7. focusfmknust.wordpress.com - the radio station's blog writing about themselve; clearly not independent
  8. rawgist.com - article is a passing mention so not signficant coverage
  9. internewsnetwork.com - a press release and an insubstantial one at that
  10. todaysprofile.com - The artile title is "Focus FM’s John Essien wins Outstanding Student Journalist at Maiden KNUST Eminence Awards" wiht a byline of "John Essien"; the source analysis writes itself

There is simply no coverage that would estalbish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Whpq (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza nationalism[edit]

Zaza nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG in that it is a controversial movement looking for recognition. See this journal article, and this one which is cited in the article. Atsme Talk 📧 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Added underlined source. 20:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Atsme Talk 📧 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Atsme Talk 📧 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, whilst the article clearly needs a clean-up, this appears to be a legit article topic. See for example "Soon Zaza nationalism began to flourish in Turkey and Iran, with some Zazas calling for the creation of a separate Zaza state called either Zazaistan or Dersim. In 1991, Zaza nationalism was further boosted when the Turkish government..."[1], "This Zaza 'nationalism' still largely a matter of exile politics..."[2], "The birth of modern Zaza nationalism in the diaspora began as a marginal phenomenon, but gradually it began to influence the debate among the Zazas inside Turkey and Iran. A minority supported calls for a separate Zazaistan, distinct from..."[3], "Most tribes there do not speak Kurdish proper but a related language called Zaza or KirmanAki; the author is a spokesman for a nascent Zaza nationalism)"[4], " To Zaza nationalists, finally, it threatens to mistakenly treat Zaza speakers as Kurds, rather than as a distinct people or nation."[5], "started claiming that the revolt had been of a Zaza nationalist character, while others called it a 'Zaza-Alevi rebellion'"[6], "Zaza Kurds (their homeland in eastern Turkey is now called "Zazastan"), however, felt their "otherness" and accused the Kurdish majority of ... Zaza nationalism is supported mainly by Alevi Zazas, while Sunni Zazas keep their reservations."[7], "Zaza nationalists , who in the 1980s claimed that the Zaza speakers were a distinct..."[8] --Soman (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm puzzled by the mention of Iran in those references since there are no Zazas there. Nonetheless, the well-sourced information should be merged to Zazas. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to support but the article needs a thorough cleaning. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a Turkish version and it should be in an English version. should not be deleted and more information is added over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.129.17 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Victoria R. Williams (24 February 2020). Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to Survival [4 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 1194. ISBN 978-1-4408-6118-5.
  2. ^ Kehl-Bodrogi; Otter-Beaujean; Barbara Kellner-Heikele (13 November 2018). Syncretistic Religious Communities in the Near East: Collected Papers of the International Symposium “Alevism in Turkey and Comparable Syncretistic Religious Communities in the Near East in the Past and Present”, Berlin, 14-17 April 1995. BRILL. p. 16. ISBN 978-90-04-37898-8.
  3. ^ James Minahan; Peter T. Wendel (2002). Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 2100. ISBN 978-0-313-32384-3.
  4. ^ Martin Van Bruinessen (2000). Kurdish Ethno-Nationalism Versus Nation-Building States: Collected Articles. “The” Isis Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-975-428-177-4.
  5. ^ Paul Joseph White; Joost Jongerden (2003). Turkey's Alevi Enigma: A Comprehensive Overview. BRILL. p. 197. ISBN 90-04-12538-8.
  6. ^ Die Welt des Islams. D. Reimer. 2008. p. 122.
  7. ^ Asian and African Studies. Vydavatel̕stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied. 2007. p. 18.
  8. ^ Martin van Bruinessen (2000). Mullas, Sufis and Heretics: The Role of Religion in Kurdish Society : Collected Articles. Isis Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-975-428-162-0.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted. Benahol (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soman, sorry but the sources you provided actually confirm why the article should be deleted. Nationalism is defined by dictionaries and having Zaza precede it, doesn't make the combination notable for a stand alone encyclopedic article. The sources you cited fail to establish notability; rather it is simple terminology in passing mention. Atsme Talk 📧 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not how to read there references. The references indicate that there is such a movement and it has sufficient degree of notability to warrant a separate article, in part demonstrated through the fact that many scholars study it. The fact that the notion that Zazas constitute a separate national or ethnic group is contested by Kurdish nationalists doesn't disqualify the notability of the subject. We also have "Aynı şekilde günümüzde Zazalar (Dimli) Kürt kökenli olduklarına dair iddialara karşı çıkıyorlar. Özellikle 20. yüzyılın son on yılında ayrı bir Zaza milliyetçiliği daha göze çarpar hale geldi ve olası bir Zazaistan ulus-devletinin haritaları Kürdistan..."[1], "and it coined the new name of Zazaistan for the ancient homeland of this nation.52 This journal appears to have had only a very small circle of readers initially, but precisely because it met with very angry Kurdish reactions, its thesis that the Zazas are a doubly oppressed people gained credibility, and gradually growing numbers of Zazas were won over to its views."[2], "semble pas concerner uniquement les Kurdes , car certaines organisations alevies , revendiquant la création d ' un État d ' Alevistan en Anatolie ainsi que des groupes prônant le nationalisme zaza et la création d ' un Zazaistan , en relèvent"[3], "Das neu erdachte Heimatland Zazaistan wird ebenfalls kaum eine starke Anziehungskraft ausüben, abgesehen von einigen romantischen Intellektuellen im Exil, aber das kulturelle Wiederaufleben der Zaza und ein gewisser Ärger über die..."[4], "Bei ihnen verschmolz eine seit jeher stark ausgeprägte regionale Sonderidentität nun zu einer über die Sprache definierten ethnischen Identität mit der Forderung nach Autonomie für ihr Verbreitungsgebiet „Zazastan" bzw. „Alevistan"".[5] --Soman (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hakan Özoğlu (2005). Osmanlı devleti ve Kürt milliyetçiliği. Kitap Yayinevi Ltd. p. 155. ISBN 978-975-6051-02-3.
  2. ^ Fāliḥ ʻAbd al-Jabbār; Hosham Dawod (2006). The Kurds: Nationalism and Politics. Saqi. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-86356-825-1.
  3. ^ Alain Jund (1995). Enjeux de l'immigration turque en Europe: les Turcs en France et en Europe : actes du colloque international de Strasbourg, 25-26 février 1991. CIEMI. p. 138. ISBN 978-2-7384-3527-9.
  4. ^ Carsten Borck; Eva Savelsberg; Siamend Hajo (1997). Ethnizität, Nationalismus, Religion und Politik in Kurdistan. Lit. p. 211. ISBN 978-3-8258-3420-3.
  5. ^ Erhard Franz; Deutsches Orient-Institut (2003). Entwicklungen und Widersprüche: zum 80-jährigen Bestehen der Republik Türkei : ausgewählte Betiräge 1999-2003. Deutsches Orient-Institut. p. 108. ISBN 978-3-89173-083-6.
See WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE. I would not object to merging the relevant parts that are worth keeping into Zazas. Atsme Talk 📧 13:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense does WP:SYNTH apply here? And out of the 13 references presented here, which are WP:FRINGE sources? --Soman (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously appropriate expansion of the relevant portion of the Zazas article. It had nothing whatsoever to do with SYNTH, as it is clearly based on sources. FRINGE is altogether irrelevant to political movements of this sort, unless it is intended as a claim that only a few people are doing it and therefore it isn't important. first,t he sources seem to show otherwise, and second, if it gets sufficientc overage, then even a small political movement is important. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 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 keep as restored to previous version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Human Top[edit]

Human Top (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable Marvel character, previously deleted(see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Top (Bruce Bravelle) insufficient reliable references to establish notability. A discussion at Talk:Human Top (Bruce Bravelle)#Time to restore? has again not established notability, a failed a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_52#Opinion_on_Human_Top_(Bruce_Bravelle) in 2018 for the same reasons. This particular article is all primary sources. At this stage its worth also consideration to salting the article so that any future reincarnation has an appropriate review before recreation. Note I closed the original AFD in 2008, I advised against in restoration on my user page, and recommended seek out advice via Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters: H before restoration, because there have been many Marvel characters merged into the list. I also commented at the recent discussion as well Gnangarra 11:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Gnangarra 11:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to previous version: This appears to be a misunderstanding. In late April, I added two references to List of Marvel Comics characters: H#Human Top. These were just bare references, and I didn't add any new content. On the strength of those references alone, BOZ started a discussion on May 11 at Talk:Human Top (Bruce Bravelle)#Time to restore? in which he asked if we should restore the Human Top (Bruce Bravelle) page. Gnangarra and Argento Surfer said (I think correctly) that there wasn't enough new material yet to restore the page. Then on May 13, Rtkat3 added content to the Human Top page, which was previously a disambiguation page. What Rtkat3 added did not include the sources that I'd added to the list page. Today, I asked Rtkat3 why he took my content off the List page and restored the disambig page, and he says that was a mistake, and not connected to the discussion that BOZ started. So -- I just returned the content to the list page, where it can stay until there's actually enough new content to create a good quality page. I would suggest restoring the Human Top page to the disambiguation version and not deleting it. Sorry that this is confusing; it took me a minute to figure out what happened. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this page to disambiguation per Toughpigs, who provided a more accurate description of which page was previously subjected to AFD, as this one was not previously at AFD. BOZ (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Clear consensus that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Burke Shepherd[edit]

Augustus Burke Shepherd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no notability here other then who he was married to, clearly fails WP:GNG Epluribusunumyall (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Obituary: Augustus Burke Shepherd". British Medical Journal: 279. 8 August 1885. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.1284.279-b.
  2. ^ "Obituary: Augustus Burke Shepherd". The Lancet. 129: 320. 15 August 1885.
  • Keep based on sources provided by Lord Bolingbroke. Obituaries in The Lancet and BMJ, widely respected publications, appears to substantiate notability when combined with his activities. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've incorporated the newly-discovered sources into the article, thanks Lord Bolingbroke! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to formally !vote keep based on the above. Shepherd was clearly a prominent physician of his time, and we have enough sourcing for a reasonable stub. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 14:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GHSS Machad[edit]

GHSS Machad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The institution seems not notable. It has no WP:RELIABLE sources except Facebook and blog links. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @Romartus Imperator, Crystallizedcarbon, Koridas, Spiderone, Robert McClenon, and AaqibAnjum: Request and invite for an independent review. ~Amkgp ✉ 14:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 10:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The submission fails any notability criteria. It is a higher secondary school and would require to pass WP:GNG and related criterias, but in its current form it is a failure. My analysis alongwith doing a random Google search make me vote Delete. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Not much content now that copyrighted material has been removed. May be notable with proper editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not been able to find any coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Also, please note that the article's author has been indefinitely blocked for long term abuse. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The first source does not say that information comes from and the second barely even mentions the subject. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL Spiderone 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - author is permanently blocked for abuse and the article fails any form of notability. Romartus Imperator (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Creations by banned or blocked user and fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:RS and WP:GNG. It should have been tagged for WP:G12 as it was a clear copyvio. KMagz04 (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revix[edit]

Revix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article on a cryptocurrency fund/platform. The references provided are a mix of start-up proposition coverage and funding announcements. Some coverage of the latter is more detailed ("A cryptocurrency boost for Revix", unsigned M&A item, 24/4/19) but my opinion is that it and the other available references fall short of demonstrating attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 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 no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus has formed herein for a particular outcome. North America1000 14:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Cine-Journalist Association[edit]

Bangladesh Cine-Journalist Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I’m afraid I’m putting this forward for deletion on TNT grounds. The article is incoherent but that’s not just at the surface level. Looking at the sources shows that there have been several organisations founded at different times in Bangladesh with this name, which sometimes did and sometimes didn’t offer awards. My impression is that the article creator has tried to stitch these mentions together to create a single account, but it’s not even sure that there is any link between the different entities over the decades. If there’s a notable topic here it needs a fresh start. Mccapra (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into separate articles for each organization, turn this article into a disambiguation page. Pretty straightforward solution to this mess, if something notable can be found within it. Incoherency would likely be fixed due to us 'unstitching' the article into multiple. If this solution would not work, then yeah, wipe the slate (delete). Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This organization is the proponent and distributor of Bachsas Awards. it's local name Bangladesh Cholochitra Sangbadik Samity (বাংলাদেশ চলচ্চিত্র সাংবাদিক সমিতি) This organization is the oldest & entertainment-related journalist organization. Its name has changed since the independence of Bangladesh.Former name is Pakistan Cine-Journalist Association. I did not get information of any other organization with this name. However, if the grammar and Wikipedia:Manual of Style are violated in the writing of the article, it can be corrected.--DelwarHossain (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We know that there is this organization celebrated 50 year anniversary in 2019 so we can infer that there is at least one organization that has continued for 50 years. The fact that there might be splinter groups or groups with similar name is irrelevant, what is relevant is if this org is notable. From the sources available and its notable awards, it is notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep needs improvement but has reliable sources coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:44, 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. Sandstein 21:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskarathu[edit]

Bhaskarathu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:37, 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 08:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Standard source searches (e.g. Google Books, Google News, Google Newspapers, Google Scholar) are not providing any coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:N. North America1000 10:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zahoor Khan Mehar[edit]

Zahoor Khan Mehar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR; no claim to notability, one third-party source, and looking him up there are no sources that pass WP:GNG. Zoozaz1 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One sentence, one source article that establishes no notability whatsoever.TH1980 (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- see old version: this used to be a more substantial article, but some time ago some one deleted a lot of unsourced material, which probably had to be deleted due to BLP issues, leaving a largely meaningless stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. Neither the current article nor the removed material makes a case for notability, and it's difficult to see either contributing to a useful article if material to support notability is eventually found. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:38, 23 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. Sourcing hasn't been provided. Spartaz Humbug! 23:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J.Derobie[edit]

AfDs for this article:
J.Derobie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails MUSICBIO. No indepth mention in any RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. He fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He did released the hit single "Poverty" and was nominated for multiple VGMAs, but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. None of the songs he has released has been discussed in reliable source.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 12:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as he had a hit single and was nominated for some notable music awards but more significant coverage in reliable sources is needed, hence a weak keep, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. J.Derobie has so many independent sources speaking about him an his music which makes him pass of as notable to have an article. He also has been nominated in two major awards schemes in Ghana and has won one award from one of the award scheme.Owula kpakpo (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Owula kpakpo He has not won any major award in music, he has won a very minor award. An award whose facebook page is barely noticeable with only 25K likes, and whose twitter is even less popular. Saying that this award somehow allows him to inherit notability is wrong on so many levels. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MistyGraceWhite: So to you an award has to have lots of social media following to become major is that the argument you making. 3 music awards is in it's third year of existence a simple Google search who would show you how popular and major the scheme is to Ghanaians and Ghanaian musicians. I live in Ghana and I believe with benefit of my location I am confident of my assertion that the award scheme is major is very right. Using social media numbers to make such an assertion is not right mind you 3 music awards is featured in almost every prominent media website in Ghana.Owula kpakpo (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Owula kpakpo it may be a major award to you, but it is not mentioned in any Reliable sources as being a major award, so according to wikipedia it is a minor almost nothing award. The social media numbers were just to explain it to you, but seeing that you did not get my point, it does not matter. The award is a minor award according to wikipedia standards, and winning such a minor award does not make this guy notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MistyGraceWhite: again the fact that the awards scheme doesn't have a Wikipedia page doesn't mean it's a minor awards unless you can point to a Wikipedia position on what a minor awards or major awards is which you clearly not added in your response to me. Like I said in Ghana the Multimedia Group Limited is a major media house and for them to be partnering with this awards should tell you the pedigree of such an award. Like I said if you have the benefit of the Ghanaian media landscape you would understand clearly why I say so. So as it stands it's your word against mine so bring something substantial with your critique.Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Owula kpakpo It is not my word against yours, it is the view of reliable sources against your opinion. You are misinterpreting the ANYBIO#1. The awards mentioned there, the kind which confer notability and allow a person to actually inherit notability in a way, are the ones which are given due a significant impact of that person's work in his field. You should instead consult the MUSICBIO guideline which points out that a major award isslike d|Grammy]], Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award"
@MistyGraceWhite: I do not believe the 3 Music Awards is a major award. However, the Vodafone-sponsored Ghana Music Awards is the biggest in Ghana. If Ghana was the U.S, the GMA would be equivalent to the Grammys. I also feel it is wrong to mention those awards in your response. How many African artists are going to get nominated for those awards? Among the list of awards you pointed out, only the Grammy has awarded African-based acts. The only reason why I support a deletion is because the subject has not done enough at this time. If he releases a body of work that is actually discussed in reliable sources, I will change my #vote.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 08:33, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 23:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talkh Chikher[edit]

Talkh Chikher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Its claim to fame is that it produces 50% of Mongolia's bread, but no RS seems to have done any in depth coverage of the company. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.

    This article from the George Institute for Global Health quotes the institute's Dr. Jacqui Webster, who was "was invited by the Mongolian Ministry of Health to support them to develop a national salt reduction strategy". Webster said, "As part of the initial consultation we visited the Talkh Chikher Bread Company in Ulaanbaatar, supplier of 50% of the population’s bread." Pinging WilyD (talk · contribs) who added this source.

    I also found:

    ЧИМГЭЭ, Цэдэвдорж; МӨНХТУЯА, Бямбаа (2012). "Талх Чихэр ХК (TCK.MSE)" [Talkh Chikher JSC (TCK.MSE)] (PDF) (in Mongolian). Standard Investment. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-03.

    The analyst report notes from Google Translate:

    Bread and Sugar Factory is one of the first food factories in Mongolia, which was opened in 1984 in Ulaanbaatar with the help of the Soviet government. It was privatized in November 1999 and reorganized into Talkh Chikher JSC. Now in its 27th year, it has more than 500 employees and produces more than 60 types of bread, pastries, cakes and sweets.

    More information from Google Translate:

    The price of flour has been stable in recent years due to improved wheat cultivation, and the price of Atar bread from Talkh Chikher JSC fluctuated between MNT 592-645 in 2008-2011, but increased to MNT 840 in September 2012, including transportation and other investment costs. . Talkh Chikher JSC alone accounts for 80 percent of the total bread market and 40 percent of the bakery.

    Also from Google Translate:

    Talkh Chikher JSC, one of the oldest food factories, started its technical renovation in 2003. These include: In 2003, Taiwan and Japan imported sugar and hard biscuit production lines, and in 2004 the European Union installed computer-controlled production lines for Atar bread. In 2005, two computer-controlled automatic lines for the production of various oval and square loaves of bread manufactured in the European Union were installed. In 2006, a new fully automatic Dutch-made bread slicing, unpacking and packing machine was put into operation, the first of its kind in Mongolia. In 2008, Mill House Flour Mill commissioned a 20-tonne Atar flour mill in Germany and Ukraine. In 2010, the state-of-the-art bakery production equipment was completely renovated at a cost of 4 billion MNT and two fully automated computer-controlled bakery lines were installed in the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Italy and China. In 2011, new “bakery” products were produced and marketed using “regulated services”. In 2012, a contract was signed with Czech companies such as J4, Mopos and Topos to install an oval bread production line and sell four types of bread enriched with additional raw materials such as carrots, many seeds and corn. Since 2003, it has invested more than $ 20 million in loans. Also produced sells its products in all shopping centers.

    ... Decreases in total asset return (ROA) and owner's equity return (ROE) in 2011 compared to 2010 may indicate poor management. From the beginning of 2012 to the present, it has fluctuated by 3.12 percent, which is less than in 2010 and 2011. However, TCK's share price is expected to rise if production changes significantly in 2013 and production capacity increases. Talkh Chikher JSC paid a dividend of 32.3-100 MNT from 1993 to 2011.

    • Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability says, "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." The analyst report says that "Talkh Chikher JSC alone accounts for 80 percent of the total bread market and 40 percent of the bakery" and "Bread and Sugar Factory [previous name of Talkh Chikher] is one of the first food factories in Mongolia". I consider Talkh Chikher to have had a significant effect on the Mongolian economy.

    Cunard (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't speak Mongolian or Russian, so I doubt I can be of much use. I only did a little cleanup after turning down a bad speedy deletion request. I would guess the largest manufacturer of bread in Mongolia easily shoots past WP:N, but you probably need a Russian, Mongolia, or maybe Chinese speaker to really find those sources. Possibly even someone in Mongolia who could track down physical sources. Wikipedia:Wikiproject Mongolia is a little active, one might try there. WilyD 07:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 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 08:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have a reliable source here that states that this company supplies 50% of the country's bread. Now Mongolia is not one of those countries about which you're likely to easily find sources online (in whatever language). An assumption of sources existing should be made, given the company's significance, even if the sources have not been found. This is after all the principle behind all the specific notability guidelines. SD0001 (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish Keep:
  • In addition to the sources above, I found this source from Tomsk Polytechnic University, which is a graduate work paper. Some feel that theses and dissertations are questionable as reliable sources, while others at times deem them to be usable and reliable. Using Google Translate, the Abstract of the paper states:

The object of the study is Talkh-Chiher JSC, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. The purpose of the work is to evaluate the efficiency of using fixed assets of the enterprise. In the course of the study, an analysis was made of the effectiveness of the use of fixed assets of Talkh-Chiher JSC. The study revealed that the company uses fixed assets inefficiently, but at the same time, the efficiency of using fixed assets is noted. Significance of the work: an analysis of the dynamics, composition and structure, movement and technical condition of the fixed assets of the enterprise, as well as an assessment of the effectiveness, use of fixed assets of the enterprise, the intensity and extensiveness of the use of technological equipment. The object of the study is JSC "Talkh-Chikher", Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Aim - to assess the effectiveness of the use of fixed assets of the enterprise. In the course of the study, an analysis was conducted of the efficiency of using the fixed assets of the company JSC “Talkh-Chikher”. The study revealed that the company uses fixed assets inefficiently, but it notes the efficiency of using basic production assets. The significance of the work: an analysis of the dynamics, composition and structure, movement and technical condition of fixed assets of the enterprise, as well as an assessment of the effectiveness, use of fixed assets of the enterprise, estimated the intensity and extensiveness of the use of technological equipment.

The entire paper is 72 pages.
  • Also, source searches under the name "Talkh-Chiher" are providing additional information, such as this paper found using Google Scholar. The Abstract is in English, and is prefaced with:

The study covered two food companies listed on the Mongolian Stock Exchange. The main data was annual financial reports of Talkh Chiher and Atar Urguu food companies from 2010 to 2014.

The Abstract itself is much longer than that quoted above, and the abstract itself actually provides a fair amount of information about the company. The paper itself also appears to coincidentally be 72 pages, but it is clear that the two papers are not identical, as per the abstracts. Furthermore, the first paper listed in my !vote was published in 2019 and the second one was published in 2015.
  • Additionally, the company is listed on the Mongolian Stock Exchange (link). Check out WP:LISTED, where it states in part, "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." In my area of the world, which is far from Mongolia, it may be diffucult to find a mass of immediate sources, although I found the ones listed in my !vote in a few minutes time.
  • This article could have some potential to be merged into Agriculture in Mongolia, but I haven't fully explored this option at this time. While agriculture and food production are similar, they are also distinct. However, with Talkh Chikher producing 50% of the country's bread products, information about Talkh Chikher could potentially fit in at the Agriculture article. North America1000 15:33, 24 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. North America1000 16:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zvornik police station shooting[edit]

Zvornik police station shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook example of WP:Recentism. While this event is certainly tragic (1 killed, 2 wounded), we shouldn't give every single murder-suicide that ever took place its own Wikipedia entry, as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTNEWS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete The claim to notability here is the claim that it was an act of terrorism, but as such, it garnered almost no notice outside the Balkan media. I found exactly one book mention, and it is a two sentence summary in an exhaustive listing of incidents. It's possible I missed a more substantial discussion, however. Mangoe (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page The incident has information in regional and international media, in addition to being an attack in a relatively safe country, in addition to being part of a string of Islamist attacks in Europe.(talk--Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:29, 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. Sandstein 21:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Relay[edit]

Great Lakes Relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to locate substantial third-party coverage of the race in Michigan news outlets aside from this. I can only presume it is a very local-level race if it has lasted 25 years with this level of media coverage. SFB 19:38, 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. Sandstein 21:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lane, Coventry[edit]

Green Lane, Coventry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG or any other part of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that it does not meet notability for a standalone article. But in Coventry#Suburbs_and_other_surrounding_areas I see that there are a lot of other articles about parts of the city. I think they could be merged into a single article that meets WP:GNG. Streepjescode (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I PRODed this a while ago as I didn't think it was notable, but if anyone wants to attempt the megamerge suggested by Streepjescode, that would be a good alternative to deletion. (I'm not volunteering). Mccapra (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mccapra (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeywrench (G.I. Joe)[edit]

Monkeywrench (G.I. Joe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is sourced to fansites, the comics/TV show themselves, a fiction novel, and an "official" book. If the book is really official, then it's pretty much a primary source, since it is not independent. A WP:BEFORE search brings up much of the same. The fictional organization this character is part of in-universe is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreadnoks. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails GNG since it is sourced only to primary sources and a fan site, and WP:PLOT since it is written from an essentially entirely in-universe perspective. Article contains nothing that should be merged, and the only valid redirect target is also up for deletion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either to Dreadnoks or to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Factions if the AFD on that article closes as a merge there. BOZ (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of stand alone notability, nothing to merge (fancruft). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minor fictional character, whose current article is mostly in-universe plot information sourced to primary and fan sources. Not notable enough to be mentioned elsewhere, and there is no reliably sourced content to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 14:26, 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. Sandstein 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultratone[edit]

Ultratone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are local to Louisville & Kentucky. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. Ineligible for PROD because it was de-PROD'd in 2008. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the article itself defines band as "regional." Legit KY and Louisville sources seem to be it. Caro7200 (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Per the articles own admission, the only coverage this band received was purely local. Rorshacma (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of lakes of Nova Scotia. Sandstein 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon Lake (Nova Scotia)[edit]

Dixon Lake (Nova Scotia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Under WP:NGEO: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist... The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. There is not too much info on it expect for coordinations and just that it is a lake. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to List of lakes of Nova Scotia, and the same for the others, per Clarityfiend. Canada has a lot of lakes, please don't mass-produce worthless permastubs when they clearly do not meet any guidelines. Reywas92Talk 23:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to lakes of Nova Scotia. Does not meet GNG. Bioforce12 (talk) 21:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Youth Change Advocates[edit]

Pakistan Youth Change Advocates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable organization that clearly fails WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS 💬 03:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 03:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 03:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG. --Saqib (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe that this article is an example of WP:NOT which should not be on Wikipedia even though it is true or useful. Also it fails WP:GNG. Bioforce12 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NORG and the coverage mainly concerns of other notable subjects. Lorstaking (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Crane[edit]

Paul H. Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is a non-notable doctor who has delivered some reality television star's babies. The sources are not RS and do not establish notability. The Los Angeles Redident's guide is a business listing. IMDB is, well, IMDB. The Hollywood Reporter is the closest thing to covering the subject in depth. Kids in the House is a site for learning about pregnancy. The LA Magazine article is misnamed and isn't about him; it's about pregnancy and quotes him from an author who has a vested interest (which they disclose). The Ricki Lake source is one line. Sources 8-11 are about other people's babies. 12 and 13 are regional, non-notable awards. This amounts to a whole lot of nothing. Kbabej (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John J Dishuck[edit]

John J Dishuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG criteria; a quick WP:BEFORE search turns up very little Melcous (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:46, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Tresch[edit]

Trent Tresch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most sources out there are from him building his own spacesuit. Article is very advertisement-heavy as-is. [15] and [16] are perhaps the most reliable sources, but even these are routine coverage of a contest, or local news coverage. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 13:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seemingly has potential. Generally the primary sources are verified by secondary independent sources as outlined by WP:PSTS. Work has gained significant independent coverage: peer reviewed journal[17], TV show [18], national coverage [19], local news, magazine [20], etc. I agree that ad-heaviness could be altered or removed. Bioforce12 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Sock strike --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place you pay to get on and any article that has such actions in its history must be removed to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Took a shot at editing the article to support my view on keeping. Still believe the atricle WP:HASPOT and meets WP:GNG. Figured that it can always get changed back if needed. Bioforce12 (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Sock strike --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Stafford Stein[edit]

Carolyn Stafford Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable attorney. She has a few trivial mentions in publications, but does not pass WP:GNG Mbdfar (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing of note in this bio. Definitely does not meet GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, accomplished professional, not notable. Caro7200 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not found anywhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. If she was once on a federal court / Ivy League academia law track, she doesn't appear to be any more nor to have left enough trace of her former life to be notable for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable as per WP:GNG. Bioforce12 (talk) 19:44, 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) 08:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kisan Swaraj Sangathan[edit]

Kisan Swaraj Sangathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted via WP:PROD (which I proposed) and was proposed for speedy deletion per WP:G11 by Praxidicae which was declined. The reasoning for the PROD still stands: "Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Article is WP:REFBOMBed with many sources that don't even mention this organization and are about either similar organizations or about the area of advocacy. Creating editor has refused to answer several requests for a WP:COI disclosure, which he/she deletes immediately from his/her talk page." GPL93 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well that was a pointless time sink. I’ve looked at the first seven refs provided. No.5 won’t auto translate so I don’t know what it says. The other six don’t mention the article topic at all. I’m not pressing on because it’s clear this organisation isn’t notable and the ref section is a Frankenstein’s monster of things stitched together to try and make this look notable when it isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG and references dont meet WP:NRV. Bioforce12 (talk) 18:22, 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 redirect to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Factions. No consensus about whether or what to merge - that's now for the editorial process to figure out. Sandstein 21:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnoks[edit]

Dreadnoks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this toy line related to a fictional military organization (from a game/action product series) passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT+WP:OR. Was redirected before but redirect was challenge. A merge was suggested but no discussion was started nor target suggested in edit summary, and most content is referenced. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cobra_(G.I._Joe)#Factions, where they are already covered, as a plausible search term. As the vast majority of the content here is in-universe plot information, largely sourced only to primary material, I am not seeing anything worth merging, but the history will be intact if anybody else finds anything worthwhile to transfer over. Rorshacma (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Factions per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Factions. Information contained within the article is not solely based on the toy line of the same name. Information contained within is based off of the comic books, multiple TV series, and films. Most, if not all the references are to those comic books which were published decades ago. I restored this article as there was no consensus for the redirect and the redirect went to a fictional character which is a part of the subject matter of the article. It does not make sense to delete the article fifteen years after its creation if the information is properly referenced and should be preserved. — Mr Xaero ☎️ 23:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that most, if not all of the references, are comics, the TV show and the movies is kind of the issue. None of those are actually considered to be reliable, secondary sources that can be used to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cobra_(G.I._Joe)#Factions, article fails GNG, as it is is sourced mostly to primary sources, with only one secondary source that is used to back up in-universe information. The vast majority of this article is in-universe information, with only one paragraph not written in an in-universe style, and that paragraph is referenced to a primary source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to the factions section of Cobra. As for it's members, they will have to be listed under the List of Cobra characters like the Iron Grenadiers members. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:23, 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 redirect to 2016 Green Party presidential primaries. Opinion is split, but there's consensus to not keep this. Sandstein 21:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Manley[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elijah Manley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The main claim of notability is that he's the youngest person to ever run for US president but that does not make him notable because, among other reasons, he's too young to run for president (per the constitution!) anyways. So running was a publicity stunt that got very little coverage. (He officially ran for the Socialist Party of the United States of America) He also simultaneously ran for the 2016 presidential nomination of the Green Party where he got trounced (obviously). In 2018, he was a distant third in a local school board election. Now he's announced that he would run in a primary election for the Democratic nomination for State Representative for Florida's 94th House District but incumbent Bobby DuBose is unlikely to lose if he seeks the nomination. Of the current references, only one qualifies as reliable and somewhat significant, the other two being links to LinkedIn and Ballotpedia. I don't think Manley meets the requirements of WP:GNG and he definitely fails WP:NPOL. Pichpich (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2016 Green Party presidential primaries. A candidates success in elections that they run in does not matter unless winning would make them pass WP:NPOL. He clearly fails that, and as for GNG, coverage mostly seems to be confined to local newspapers in Southern Florida based around his State House run. The College Media Network article might be an exception, but just looking at the mess that is that website's page makes me severely doubt that it is a reliable source. However, as his run for the Green nomination is documented in a table there, it is clearly a good redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2016 Green Party presidential primaries. It seems the claim to notability is his run for President which is outlined in the proposed redirect page. The current article isn't enough to qualify for WP:GNG and as mentioned before doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Bioforce12 (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform for aspiring future notables to publicize themselves, so people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates for elected office. The presidential primary was literally just a publicity stunt, as even now he's still not old enough to even be eligible to run for president — and precisely because of that limitation, the claim that he was "the youngest person ever to run for president" is entirely unverifiable and of no practical significance anyway. The fact that he's running for something again in 2020 doesn't automatically qualify him for an article now, because the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — and the fact that a handful of campaign coverage happens to exist is not in and of itself a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL either, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a handful of campaign coverage. Obviously he'll qualify for an article in November if he wins the seat, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is enough to already earn him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I call hogwash on the "if elected he would be the youngest Florida legislator" is this ever (which I doubt) or currently (which makes assumptions about who else will win). He is an unelected candidate for state legislature which is inherently non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While he hasn't held a NPOL worthy office. He may fit the criteria in WP:POLOUTCOMES, he is the youngest person to run for president of the US and the youngest to run for Florida office. You could also argue that his press coverage exceeds what a usual state rep candidate coverage would normally be. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Youngest person ever to run as a candidate for X office" is not a notability claim in and of itself; the claims are also not actually being properly verified by any reliable sources confirming them, and the reason why "youngest person ever to run for president of the United States" especially doesn't work has already been addressed above — even today he's still not old enough to even be eligible to run for or serve as president, which makes the claim both unverifiable (there can easily be younger people who attempted a presidential run and just didn't get any non-trivial media coverage for that since it was a moot point) and not of any significant or enduring interest even if it could be verified as true. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_May_16&oldid=958884135"