Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 May	18 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Borderline WP:SPA "support" voters are given little weight. The title will be salted against further recreation without a specific consensus to create. BD2412 T 05:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalle Oskari Mattila[edit]

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

Note two previous AFD resulted in deletion decisions in 2017. Nothing about the subject's notability, nor the references, have improved with time. Self-promotional article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Parse out the the self-created and self-referential citations and notability is not supported. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. Almost all coverage is the author's own publications. Just getting writing published in prominent publications does not substantiate notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Added recent press coverage, a dictionary reference in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, more work history, recent publications and academic references to provide context. --User:Manhattanave22 —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still remains a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding in the Finnish Wikipedia page: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalle_Mattila samariterstrasse —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Atlantic stated in 2016 that "Kalle Oskari Mattila is a graduate student in the nonfiction MFA writing program at Columbia University." I removed content that would not be in a notable author's article to see what remains. It may be that he will become notable under Wikipedia's WP:GNG guidelines, but not yet. (Adding a lot of content about where his works were published is kind of a red flag that it is filler to make someone appear to be notable. What are needed are awards and/or other signs of notability.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Carole, why did you edit out all the major press coverage? That seems pertinent to me in establishing his notability as a well-known Finnish writer – he's been on broadcast TV and in all the major newspapers in Finland. The WP:GNG guidelines say: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." User:ManhattanAve22 03:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in several ways:

I removed content that would not be in an article for a truly notable person. (A long way of saying it's not encyclopedic content).

Adding information like what newspapers published their articles is a "red flag" that someone is attempting to fill the article with content to make it appear that they are notable.

Other people have said the same thing.

I removed a couple of non-reliable sources - that were online and in English.

The point is: it is not helpful to attempt to fill an article with non-notable content - it becomes a blaring red flag that it is not notable content. There are a lot of people who write articles. What makes him notable, though: what notable awards has he won for his work, for instance. Thus, my point, it appears to be WP:TOOSOON.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to look at the other Wikipedia pages that link to his page. There seem to be many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Kalle_Oskari_Mattila Catfishing, for example. His essay is one of the few, if not the only personal accounts of catfishing ever published in a major newspaper. Or the Share a Coke campaign which he dissected in an article. Or Finnish literature for which he is a leading critic. User:ManhattanAve22 07:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you would like to keep this article, but redefining notability to suit this article isn't the way to go about it. It is clearly too soon for this individual.

There are only four or so articles that link to his article. It has already been nominated two others times for deletion - and judged non-notable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of supporting evidence in terms of Finnish press coverage that you've now cut out of the article. You probably didn't do it on purpose since it appears you don't read Finnish. But it would be important to take that coverage into account as it establishes his notability according to the WP guidelines. User:ManhattanAve22 21:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what to say. One of the articles talks about Modern Love, which is mentioned already in the WP article. There are a couple of human interest stories, that don't add to his notability - like how he created an internet persona at the age of 12, or how he, as a Finn with coronavirus, adjusts to life under quarantine in NYC, etc. There is nothing that talks critically about his work as an author.

It seems the biggest issue is a failure to attempt to understand notability guidelines - and rather base it on your own opinion of notability. See WP:LISTEN.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This piece on the largest Finnish commercial TV network talks about him being one of the rising stars of Finnish literature in the United States: https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/suomalaisten-kirjoittajien-kysynta-kasvaa-usa-ssa-kalle-oskari-mattila-vertaa-elamaansa-sinkkuelaman-carrieen-kirjallisuusagentit-lahettelevat-viesteja-peraani/7264724

When he has attained suitable notability (i.e., when he really meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:JOURNALIST this could be a good entry for his "Early career" section. What part of WP:TOOSOON do you not understand?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this article in Finland's largest newspaper says he is the only Finnish writer to ever have been published in the ML column in the New York Times: https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000006307706.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhattanave22 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No comment. And, I won't comment any more on this page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me as though notability is being inspected here from an American point of view, not from what would constitute notability in general. The subject has a Wikipedia entry in Finnish Wikipedia which has not been challenged in the same ways as this article has – perhaps that's because in terms of being specifically a Finnish writer notability has already been achieved? My apologies if this debate is not encouraged/allowed. Manhattanave22 (talk) 23:18, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Pinot[edit]

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

Non-notable actress fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. KidAd (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of the two sources one does not work. Of course that is actually being overly optimistic. One source is IMDb that is not reliable, and the other is her not working website. It also does not appear she ever had a significant role in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: As an actress the subject does not meet the relevant notability requirements, but I qualify my vote as "Weak" because I provide no opinion regarding WP:NMODEL (though I suspect a similar conclusion would be drawn in that regard). Dflaw4 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NYArts[edit]

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

Of the three sources in the article, one is an interview, and then the ArtNet ref is based off the NY Post ref. A BEFORE search didn't show anything of note. Kbabej (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as blatant WP:PROMO. Written partially by Lubelski himself. KidAd (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to admit to having seen lots of articles which only source to the subjects own website, but just because we have lots of poorly sourced articles does not mean we should keep them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep The NY Post coverage is quite significant and it is a main stream, general interest news who actually interviewed numerous people, and went as far as going to the CEO's house to try to get an interview. If anything, the article can be re-written to focus on the scandal. Graywalls (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting perspective. The NY Post piece is about the person bilking artists out of thousands. It doesn't review the magazine, its circulation, its significance, or its impact. This is less coverage about the magazine and more about a con job. --Kbabej (talk) 02:02, 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. MER-C 09:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Klein[edit]

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

Non notable writer who fails GNG and NARTIST. Do note that there is another writer/editor who lives in Philadelphia -- this is not that person. The book length poem he is supposedly most known for "World's Biggest Shopping Mall Poem" is only held in two libraries, and I could find no critical reception for it.[1] Theredproject (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Reads like promotional material. KidAd (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer. It is a sign of how presentist Wikipedia is that I feel like I am adding to presentism in supporting the dletion of this article since the subject was born before 1988, our peak year for number of bios of people born in that year. There is a reason the Covid-19 deaths list article is much shorter than one might expect, a disease that targets mainly people born before 1960, and even more so before 1950, when the vast majority of our biographical articles are on people born 1970 or later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable tour-guide and writer, does not pass WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 01:17, 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. MER-C 09:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mullane[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources of this Australian musician and fashion designer. Tacyarg (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete minor model, with accordignly minor coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 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. MER-C 09:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yemenians in Sweden[edit]

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

Tiny community. Nothing notable about it. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sjö (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails GNG and WP:NOTSTATS, the title does not even use correct terminology. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Neighbor's Secret[edit]

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

Plot outline and cast list of non-notable Lifetime made-for-TV movie; no assertion of notability whatsoever, and no sourcing outside of the movie's IMDb page Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage to be found to lift this into the realm of notability. BD2412 T 05:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of South Africa[edit]

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

Non-notable political party. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Party appeared in 2014 prior to the general election, did not contest the general election and subsequent elections. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Alliance of Libertarian Parties. Article fails GNG, as it sourced to two primary sources and one article published by the Libertarian Party of the United States, which might also be a primary source and is not enough to pass GNG anyway. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Alliance of Libertarian Parties as it is non notable to WP:GNG. Bioforce12 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:11, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChessBase India[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Lots of passing mentions, as in hundreds of oneliners, nothing in-depth anywhere on the internet. Fails to meet SIGCOV, created by 10-edits and go new account. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not agree. Chessbase India seems to be the biggest Chess Portal in India and if I am googling it, I receive tons of results. Author seems to be a newbie, needs definitely help. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:CommanderWaterford there is no indepth covergae. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, AfDs about Indian companies really seem to bring out the insults and other bad faith actions for some reasons.

Delete It doesn't really matter how big they are. If they lack in-depth coverage, which seems to be the case, they aren't notable enough for an article according to Wikipedia's standards. It's not on us that Indian news sources seem to be extremely trivial in coverage about things there. Maybe the notability standards should be modified to make an except for companies in India because of it, but that's out of the scope of AfDs or voters. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. More, in the article it says that that ChessBase India is initiative of ChessBase India Foundation, which in itself is non notable. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 00:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ChessBase. Merge, if there's anything to merge. The work will remain safe in history to be picked up again, after the organisation gets some WP:SIGCOV. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. Z. Phizo Memorial[edit]

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

non notable memorial. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Isn't it strange how we don't have articles about the memorial of Elvis Presley or Barack Obama but we have a memorial for this guy that I've never heard of in my life? Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 06:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article can surely be improved. Would be bias if other memorials like Mausoleum of Mao Zedong can be included but not a memorial from a minor community is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousme (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The available references only makes a passing mention. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find significant coverage of the memorial. SportingFlyer T·C 04:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment merge into subjects bio.Mlepisto (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent article. A short paragraph will do. CJK09 (talk) 08:30, 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! 07:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's College, Jakhama Students' Council[edit]

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

the student council of a local college, was A7'ed a couple of years ago, recreated so AFD. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG; can't see how a school council can be notable Spiderone 10:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep. This article can surely be improved. There are some coverage on media and it is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that it is a notable students' council of a college in Nagaland. Anonymousme (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admin - Keep vote is from article creator Spiderone 20:22, 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! 07:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's College, Jakhama Spring Fest[edit]

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

annual get togather of a local college, not notable enough to pass GNG, only coverage is news pieces in local newspapers. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable school fête Spiderone 10:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep. This article can surely be improved. There are enough coverage on media and it is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that it is a notable inter-college festival in Nagaland. Anonymousme (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2020
- Note to admin - Keep vote is from article creator Spiderone 20:21, 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! 07:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakhrie Park[edit]

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

a local park, nothing in any RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 10:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some coverage on media. It is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that it is a notable park in Kohima. Anonymousme (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please provide sources. Spiderone 20:19, 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. JGHowes ^talk 17:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruopfüzhano Whiso[edit]

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

local beauty pageant winner, fails GNg, no in-depth mention in RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sub-national level beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone 10:25, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veineinem Singson[edit]

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

winner of a local beauty pageant, nothing in RS to make her pass GNG. no in-depth coverage anywhere MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Miss_Nagaland#Miss_Nagaland_2014. Winning the beauty pageant doesn't confer notability, all mentions are passing or not in RS's. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article can surely be improved. Would be bias if other beauty pageants can be included but not a pageant from a minor community is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousme (talk • contribs)
Strong delete sub-national beauty pageant winners are almost never notable. There is not reason to make an exception here. Wikipedia does not exist to right wrongs, or to create coverage of things there has not been much coverage of. That is not bias, that is following after reliable secondary coverage, as opposed to creating it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally non-notable BLP1E. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 10:26, 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. MER-C 09:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vilelie Khamo[edit]

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

non notable contractor, fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Chunks of the article text are not only WP:PEACOCKery but can also can be seen to be copied from the now-expired company website. Aside from routine coverage of sponsorships and award of contracts, passing mentions of "M/S Velelie Khamo (Class I contractor)" can be found in coverage of a corruption investigation ([2], [3]). I am not seeing enough coverage to establish that the subject is notable. AllyD (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 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. MER-C 09:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vekhotolü Lohe[edit]

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

non notable beauty pageant. Fails GNG, no SIGCOV in RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG passing mention in sources. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen. We still have an awful lot of articles on such people. I began the push against such articles by nominating the one I created on Sloan Bailey several years ago, but we still have a long way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 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) 00:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Kohima[edit]

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

non notable beauty pageant. Fails GNG, no SIGCOV in RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article can surely be improved. Would be bias if other beauty pageant contests like Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss India, etc can be included, but not a beauty pageant contest from a minor community is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousme (talk • contribs)
Delete Totally non-notable BLP1E. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty contest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks reliable sources Spiderone 10:29, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Eynon[edit]

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

I'm unsure about notability here, tending towards "lacking". Basically the only criterion that could be applied here is number of cites (GNG, honours, positions do not rise to anything special in our sense of the word), and that features one big whopper and a number of good ones [4]. I don't feel this is sufficient, it's probably a bit of a judgement call. Please assess. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, this is looking pretty solid. Giving it another 12 h and then withdrawing if no dissenting opinion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've trimmed a lot of badly-sourced fluff from the article. I couldn't find enough book reviews for WP:AUTHOR, but her heavy citations on Google Scholar [5] look like a pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me. There's also a weaker case for #C8 as one of three editors-in-chief of a journal from one of the major commercial publishers (despite the fact that we don't have a separate article for the journal yet). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated note - these textbooks retail for more than a thousand dollars!!? [6] No wonder students end up with 100k student loan debts. Holy mackerel. (Thanks for the review ref) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Top-cited paper with over 1000 citations + several other that are quite respectable in citations certainly looks like WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgetown Chimes[edit]

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

Non-notable student organization. User:Namiba 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:14, 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. Barely (if that) notable subject requesting deletion is allowed under BIODELETE Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Waters[edit]

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

notability Elisabeth97865 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article subject, I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want the article to be deleted. Elisabeth97865 (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been here since 2007 and doesn’t contain anything that isn’t already public. Mccapra (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks like WP:BIODEL applies. Tacyarg (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A private individual with a public blog about her books and writing? The first time I clicked on the "Official website" link at http://www.elisabethwaters.com/ I got a dead link, but trying again it redirects to https://waters01.blogspot.com/p/elisabeth-waters.html . One of the earlier versions of her website in the internet archive (Feb 2005) states "After MZB's death, Elisabeth finished assembling the anthologies SWORD & SORCERESS 18-20, then retired to a convent." All a bit odd. According to the Marion Zimmer Bradley article Bradley, Waters and Diana L. Paxson founded the Center for Non-Traditional Religion which has now become The Fellowship of the Spiral Path (whose website refers to a "History" section which doesn't seem to exist!) No apparent reason to delete the article. PamD 09:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also referred to as Lisa Waters in various places online. Complicated. PamD 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing suggests she is notable. Having reviewed lots and lots of articles created in 2007, our creation and inclusion criteria were not being applied then. Wikipedia has never had enough oversight to suggest we should have a grandfather caluse for old articles, that would actually just make systemic bias worse, I see no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BIODEL applies for this case. Risker (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, wish some "delete" voters at afds did a bit more than apparent superficial digging for sources, a good place to start for scifi/fantasy writers is ISFDB, Waters' entry is here, showing that she is a prolific author/editor, clicking on her first novel, Changing Fate brings up this, showing that it was nominated for the 1995 Locus Award for Best First Novel (here is a nomination listing, and reviewed in Locus (mag contents here), and Starlog (mag contents here) so technically meeting WP:NBOOK(?); also, a couple of books she edited have Publishers Weekly reviews: here and here, i do concede, though, that more is probably needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * I believe that she perfectly meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria and the article is pragmatic. Nevertheless, if she prefers to be deleted shouldn't we consider it? Innovamus (talk) 02:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwork: A History of Hacks and Pranks at MIT[edit]

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

Non-notable book. User:Namiba 19:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NBOOK by virtue of being multiply reviewed [7][8][9][10] and more briefly at [11][12][13]; it seems to be a bit of a go-to reference for university lore [14], and its author has been quoted as a subject-matter expert [15]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, has received multiple independent reviews as brought out above (thanks to XOR'easter). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:50, 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. MER-C 09:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Norton[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Fails WP:BASE/N as the subject has not played in a major league. He would only pass BASE/N if he is ever promoted to coach in the major leagues. He does not appear to pass WP:GNG, with a little local coverage in the Hartford Courant failing to reach the level of significant coverage needed. The first three links are from the site of the Cape Cod Baseball League, hardly an independent source as they work to promote themselves by promoting who plays for them. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASE/WP:GNG. There are a couple Hartford Courant articles on him, but I don't think those come anywhere close to establishing long term notability as most local papers in the US will follow local minor league players. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per coverage in reliable sources. In addition to the Hartford articles, which are not to be discounted, there is [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not a single one of those articles cover him significantly, much less at a level which shows he's more notable than a run of the mill minor leaguer. In a couple of those he's interviewed about another player, but in most of them he's only mentioned once and then very briefly. SportingFlyer T·C 17:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. [1] is mostly about Jay Bell, [2] is about Ty Hensley, [3] is about Deivi Garcia, [4] is about Brooks Kriske, [5] is about Patrick Osburn. [6] mentions a whole bunch of Yankee farm hands and gives Norton less than a sentence, [7] is a run of the mill game recap, and [8] is about the whole team at UConn. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASE/WP:GNG. There isn't much more than routine coverage or in passing when covering another subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a player or a coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genkai Chōsen Distopia[edit]

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

A cancelled arcade game that fails the notability criteria. Out of the twelve sources in this article, only one of them is reliable (Game Machine), and it doesn't even mention the game whatsoever. Floor 25 *might* be reliable, but I can't verify what it says or even what it is. There's nothing I could find about this game on places like the Web Archive, so I don't believe this is worthy of a Wikipedia page. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 14:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this page because it was an unreleased game by Toaplan (a notable shoot 'em up developer). Finding sources about it was NOT easy since it was one of the very last projects Toaplan did before facing bankruptcy. The Gamengai link translated the Floor 25 interview with Tatsuya Uemura, which mentions Distopia. There's also the BrainBusters book, which showcased the game in great detail. I forgot to include another reference that I found afterwards months later: Shooting Gameside, which also talked about the project. At this point, I believe you're deleting articles I've created on purpose. Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One other thing I also forgot to mention is the GSLA link, which contains an interview with Junya Inoue that has not been translated by shmuplations or any other website, which talks about his role with Distopia. Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the lack of any significant coverage from third-party publications. Developer interviews do not count as that, and neither do small paragraphs from random gaming magazines or random unreliable forum posts. There needs to be significant coverage of this game in order for it to have an article on Wikipedia, which I was unable to find. The burden is on you to establish notability. It's not my fault you've made so many poor-referenced video game pages. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Namcokid47: When did i say at any time and moment it was you fault that i made "poor-referenced" articles? Don't say stuff I've NEVER said to you. I know full-well that references and sources are a requirement for articles and I know the consequences for not meeting said criteria, but i'm just flat out tired of people taking the easy route of deleting articles for not being notable enough instead of putting effort to improve them. Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I take great offense at that last bit: "but i'm just flat out tired of people taking the easy route of deleting articles for not being notable enough instead of putting effort to improve them". By no means is deleting an article "the easy route". I'm deleting this article because of its poor sourcing and its failure to meet the notability guidelines, not on anything else. I looked high and low for sources on this game but found just about nothing. I looked at some of the sources you provided to try and justify why this article should be kept, and do not consider them reliable. Maybe Brainbuster could be okay, but even still that leaves three out of the twelve references being used. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not this again. Analyzing the sources I can access (seems that Brainbuster thing is potentially worthy?), there are simply no significant reliable sources here. An entry on arcade-history, no idea what Postback is (seems like a shmup blog with a forum?) that even admits "most likely, you never heard of it before", InsertCredit is a passing mention (before even getting to reliability), Neo Arcadia seems like a blog hosted by a group of fans seeing the equipe page (and the generic powered by WordPress note), Biglobe is a name drop, a tweet of a random person with a video of the game (need I say anything else?), a passing mention on Chibarei (which includes blog in its url) and 2 forum references. Searched a while in japanese, and found nothing sadly. Hence, it fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, KGRAMR, huge respect for your contributions most of the time (just seeing you expanded Snow Bros., a game that I loved back in my childhood made me happy). But "created this page because it was an unreleased game by Toaplan" is a wrong approach to go for, especially since WP:NOTINHERITED exists, and not all games of a notable developer can be notable. And please don't be disheartened by these AfDs, it's just that creating articles about cancelled AND Japan-only video games are hard to prove they are notable sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of cancelled Japanese video game articles on Wikipedia.. The difference between Genkai and those is that those articles offer significant coverage on the subject, both at release and retrospectively, by other publications. There's even ultra-obscure games like Starblade: Operation Blue Planet (an article which I made) that are at Good Article status and meet the criteria. Genkei lacks both of these, and it's why I'm nominating it for deletion; not based on personal vendetta, but doing what is right. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps belated response here, but Namcokid47, KGRAMR, I know AfDs are stressful, but please don't insult each other's editing practices. You guys are both good faith editors who put a lot of obvious work into your edits. You should be friends.
I'd like to weigh in on the issue at hand, but I'm not clear on why redirecting the article to Toaplan is not being considered. I haven't been hugely active on AfDs recently, but last I checked redirecting to the developer's article was the default alternative to deletion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I vote to delete this simply based on the fact that nothing reliable seems to cover these in detail. Redirects are acceptable if the subject can later become notable, as it simply allows one to remove the redirect. I can't see that happening with this game, nor do I see this as being a plausible search term. There's no real course of action here but to delete the article. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @KGRAMR: I appreciate and celebrate your work and enthusiasm, but unfortunately I don't see how this article meets GNG or has long-term notability. I understand that sources are difficult to come by, but that's what makes it particularly difficult for others to contribute and add to the article as you'd like. I'd wouldn't object if this was closed as redirect, either. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Metcalfe[edit]

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

Not Notable. Spare for being a very minor youtube video producer and previous owner of a magazine. I dont belive either of these things warrants a wikipedia article. Moist towelett (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable magazine editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Schiller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Much as I hate to do this to a fellow UW-M alumnus, seems to me this obscure business guy falls under WP:BLP1E. This should be trimmed back and the remaining content put into a small sub-section of Sun Gym gang. Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adetu Kossi Evanonye[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances in fully-pro leagus BlameRuiner (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 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. Goodbye, cyrptocurrenspam. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MavroCoin[edit]

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

Non notable cryptocurrency. fails SIGCOV. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very promotional advertising like content, a borderline G11 speedy deletion and a case of WP:PROMO imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article's creator has left a comment on the article's talk page opposing deletion. Hut 8.5 21:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Nenciu[edit]

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

The subject of this article is an Associate Professor, and does not pass WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete An associate professor, h-index only 8, citations under 400 (according to google scholar), awards don't seem overly prestiguous to me. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to agree that she doesn't show notability: what a pity that the student editor involved has not been better advised about choice of topic, as they've put in a lot of work and produced a good-looking article, properly sourced etc (OK, the lead could do with some tweaking as her marriage doesn't belong there, etc). If this article had survived we might have had a skillful new editor: if it is deleted we're more likely to have one disappointed student ex-editor - though I suppose the course grade is their sole goal, rather than a surviving Wikipedia article. @Helaine (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed): Who chose or approved the topics? PamD 09:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The student editor has done a very good job with their editing, but unfortunately unless something turns up in this discussion, they've worked on an unsuitable topic. Mccapra (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And having now found a different page for the course, I see that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Pensworth Reagor is a similar sad case. Most of the other students don't appear to have made any contributions at all (or perhaps are working in sandboxes: red links, anyway), though the one working on Jocelyn Bell Burnell doesn't seem to have made any edits to the existing substantial article. PamD 10:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Some sort of miscommunication about notability occurred with that class. When we realised (back in February, maybe) we asked the instructor to tell their students not to move their work to mainspace, and for the most part the students did as asked. This article is one of several that made it to mainspace anyway. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian (Wiki Ed): Thanks for the reply. How sad for the students. I hope communication works better on future courses, and that despite this muddle some of the students might get hooked on editing! PamD 17:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It looks a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. She does have one very highly cited paper, which someone might be able to base a keep argument upon. And she publishes in solid journals. But her overall count of citations (h-index, etc) look a little low for WP:NPROF C1, particularly given that she's an associate professor (even in a lower-citation field like math). The awards listed are all local and/or early career. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. In principle, I would like to include as many articles about successful women mathematicians as possible, and her tenured position, ongoing grant funding, and well-cited (for mathematics) research record show that she is indeed being successful. But in this case, there is only one thing that can be used to justify an article according to WP:PROF, the citation count for her highest-cited paper, and I just don't think one reasonably well received but not absolutely first rank paper and no other evidence of notability is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as WP:Too soon. Even for mathematicians her citations are weak. May improve later. Give it time. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 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 Procedural close.. Was moved to draft by User:Diptadg17 (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Babu[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer and coach, fails NFOOTY. Trivial coverage. Was deleted 2 years ago by PROD. BlameRuiner (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Diptadg17 (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC) What if I move it to draft?[reply]

Diptadg17 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)I want to move it to draftspace. Please help me. And don't delete it before I move it to draft.[reply]

Delete a non-notable person connected with football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 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. Per persuasive source analysis Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community Based Medical College, Bangladesh[edit]

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

Fails ORGCRIT, no covergae in RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Does not fail ORGCRIT and has coverage in RS.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Does not fail ORGCRIT and has coverage in R.S.Easytostable (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I know we often consider degree awarding colleges to be notable but this is a promotional mess and there is virtually no actual coverage of the school and I'd expect to see significant coverage for such a medical college. Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Diametrically opposite views have been put forward, without explanation, about whether it does or doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Examining the cited sources:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
cbmcb.org	Y	N	Y	N	N	The school's website
Outlook India	N	Y	Y	N	N	Passing mention
enewsroom.in	N	Y	?	N	N	Passing mention
Greater Kashmir	N	Y	Y	N	N	Passing mention
smileeducation.in	Y	N	Y	N	N	Data from the college's about us page, rearranged
search.wdoms.org	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Indiscriminate directory listing
Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Indiscriminate directory listing of every med school in Bangladesh
The Daily Star	N	Y	Y	N	N	Passing mention
banglajol.info	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Indiscriminate directory listing, every med school in Bangladesh is required to publish a journal
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

The news sources are all primary source passing mentions, like "[so-and-so] was shifted to Community Based Medical College Hospital, a private hospital at Churkhai in Mymensingh Sadar". The other independent sources are all indiscriminate lists of all med schools in Bangladesh. They support basic directory-type information, but do not establish notability. The only remaining source, other than the school website, is an obscure mirror of the college's about page. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahpura Haveli[edit]

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

Created by a blocked(not banned) account promoting their hotel. There is no in-depth mention of this hotel/haveli in any RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Only mentions in RS's are passing, at best. As it stands the article is on a nn topic and essentially an advert. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahpura Hotels. (As a technical point, the article's creator is blocked, not banned). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 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 delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahpura House[edit]

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

Created by a COI , UPE account to promote their business, there are no in-depth mentions of this in any RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously promotional-only article and the author has been indefinitely blocked for such behaviour. Ajf773 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 10:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo. Wm335td (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects[edit]

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

As a business, the company does not pass WP:NCORP criteria. Gwathmey may possibly be notable,but per WP:INHERITORG the creation of page under his business as well is not justified. Graywalls (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a little confused by this argument. First of all, Gwathmey is very notable, not just "possibly notable." I did a database search for "Gwathmey Siegel" and found 2000+ results; refining that to all results published after Gwathmey's 2009 death resulted in 500+ results. Given he didn't design all the buildings that his partnership designed, wouldn't coverage of the firm (not him as a person) during his life still establish Notability? Setting that aside, the firm received significant coverage after his death. [24] [25] [26] including two books about the firm: [27] [28] Theredproject (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Theredproject:, notability of Charles Gwathmey is something else. However, are you finding significant, in depth, diverse, independent coverage about Gwathmey Siegel & Associates Architects as a company? Charles Gwathmey being notable doesn't make the company for which he's a co-founder of without the subject getting notability as a business, per WP:INHERITORG. Graywalls (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- this one is routine coverage and it's press release based. 2 is also a press release. trivial coverage. And one of the books was partly written by one of the company's partners, so it wouldn't be independent. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Graywalls: yes of course I understand that the "notability of Charles Gwathmey is something else" but in your nomination you called it into question, saying he "may possibly be notable" -- that "possibly" implies you have doubts. You asked me if I found coverage about the company itself: I just told you that I found well over 2000 items in a database search for the name of the company, 500 of which were after Gwathmey himself died. Okay, you can dismiss this NYT reportage as press release based, though I've never seen that claim addressed to coverage from the grey lady, but Rizzoli published two books dedicated solely to the work of the company (not Gwathmey as an individual); though one of these had participation by Siegel, to suggest that it should be fully dismissed because it is self published misunderstands the editorial process, and the significance of Rizzoli. Even still, there is another monograph dedicated to the company's work. I would be a lot more sympathetic to the WP:INHERITORG argument if you were proposing deleting SOMA (architects) as separate from Michel Abboud but this is closer to arguing that Office for Metropolitan Architecture should be deleted because the citations primarily cover Rem Koolhaas. Theredproject (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes general notbility guidelines.Djflem (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering what this organization has architected, this is definitely a notable organization. I agree with previous commenters. Dwaro (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:V WP:N Wm335td (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghuos Bux Brohi[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet GNG.. he has got some trivial coverage from independent reliable sources such as here and here but nothing significant..... I tried WP:BEFORE this nomination, but was unsuccessful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he has been given a notable presudential award for Pride of Performance, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article about a musician was poorly written and needed cleanup. I did the best I could to improve it. Now it has 5 references from Pakistani newspapers and they are all working – 2 different newspaper references confirm his Pride of Performance award in 2009. Added a related template, categories and made it a stub. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pride of Performance is a significant national award, meets WP:ANYBIO.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:28, 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Jogi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

So this article was deleted back in 2018 and it seems it has been re-created with the same material.

The subject does not appear to meet GNG.. he has got some trivial coverage from independent reliable sources such as here and here but nothing significant..... I tried WP:BEFORE this nomination, but was unsuccessful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little has changed since thee first AfD in 2018. In that older discussion, note that some editors searched for information about this musician in the relevant local languages but found little beyond what could be found in English. The musician has a few magazine mentions (see the source already at footnotes 1 and 4 in the article), and I also found a few mentions in sources that cater to collectors of obscure exotica (e.g. [29]), but unfortunately the musician remains a topic for specialist collectors and there is not enough significant and reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough here to meet our criteria for inclusion. Wm335td (talk) 16:11, 26 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! 21:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable buildings. User:Namiba 15:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 15:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Mccapra (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Flori4nKT A L K 18:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I would also consider this article to be worthy of nomination too: List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology undergraduate dormitories. Ajf773 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Ajf773 about the other article too. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology undergraduate dormitories--User:Namiba 14:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very selectively merge to Housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Student housing is a noteworthy aspect of a university's operation (at least, it was before Covid-19...), and there are bits and pieces of this page that are more about history than about being a building directory. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheodoreIndiana (talk • contribs) 06:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as an ATD. Student housing is notable, perhaps not notable enough for a standalone. Wm335td (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasser Sina[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not cover WP:GNG at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 08:32, 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 redirect to Future Nostalgia. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (Dua Lipa song)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NSONGS, all sources are from album reviews of Future Nostalgia therefore it should be redirected to Future Nostalgia. Cool Marc ✉ 15:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all information on this page (besides cover versions) can be found on the Future Nostalgia page as well as Dua Lipa's discography page. Therefore it should be redirected to Future Nostalgia.
Redirect. Article serves no purpose on its own as it does not cover subjects not covered elsewhere. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Future Nostalgia: It's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:09, 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. No consensus for salting, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lubelski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and NARTIST, as there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Probably should be redirected to NYArts the magazine he ran which is notable, in so much as it is infamous as a pay-to-play scam. I would have done so directly, except article was nominated thrice (2005, 2005, 2007), so bringing it here out of respect for process.

The first two discussion closed with little discussion and no consensus (though a clear sense this was likely vanity cruft), and the third closed in 2007 as keep, but without properly verifying the claims in the article. That discussion hinged around two claims for N: exhibition at the Venice Bienniale, and a sentence fragment on the Hermitage site, both of which were misleading or taken out of context.

The first claim is misleading if not downright false: he was not part of the Bienniale in such a way that would satisfy ARTIST 4(b) (e.g. a national pavilion or the main group exhibition) but rather was merely in one of dozens of private exhibitions mounted in Venice at the same time as the Biennale; furthermore that exhibition had 250 artists in it who "were asked to e-mail their submissions as digital files. These were printed out, placed in plastic sleeves and brought to Venice for installation. Hung from criss-crossing lengths of string at the Church of S. Maria Ausiliatrice"[30]

The Hermitage language comes from website promotional material about a panel he spoke on: "There will be meetings with Anna Frants, Abraham Lubelski, Jolanta Gora-Wita (New York), who are widely known in the world of media artists and curators."[31] The current website says "Within the context of this program, on 8 April there was a Round Table discussion entitled "Hacking as an Art" with participation by Russian and foreign Internet artists, programmers and curators. There were lectures by the publisher and editor-in-chief of NY ARTS Magazine, consultant on questions of art, and artist in the performance genre, Abraham Lubelski - "Media Art as a Properly Constructed Business" - and by the media artist and curator Jolanta Gora-Wita - "Internet Culture as the Art of Communication.""[32]

Pinging @Bus stop, Freshacconci, Eastmain, Tyrenius, DGG, and Vassyana: who were participants in the second substantive discussion. Theredproject (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Theredproject (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only notability here seems to stem from having run a reportedly sketchy art business.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I agree with your assessment (see mine below). What are your thoughts on salting the article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbabej (talk • contribs)

We're on the fourth AFD, but it does not appear the article has ever been deleted and recreated. Correct me if I am wrong.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, you are correct. Don't know why I was thinking that it was recreated. Striking the salt portion of my !vote below. Thanks! --Kbabej (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and salt~~. Observer states he sold an apartment, and then there's a smattering of coverage saying he scammed artists out of thousands, but his artwork isn't notable. ~~As we're on the third or fourth iteration of this article, I suggest this be salted.~~ --Kbabej (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an artist, I can't see what on earth he could be known for. I can find only find one (group) exhibition that he appears to have been in. I can't find anything about his work, or even just an image of a work he might have made. Vexations (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC) (expand) As a curator, he has the same problem. He has never curated anything that has received significant critical attention. There is some coverage of him as an editor, but those are mostly accusations of operating a scam that have not been proven in court. Vexations (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as Isaid last time, curators can be notable independent of their own art work. So can editors of major magazines. (If not, merge to the article on the magazine) DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His magaizine, NYArts, has been nominated for deletion here. --Kbabej (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is blatant WP:PROMO, and was partially written by Lubelski himself. KidAd (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing may have been enough to justify an article back in 2005 when we did not actually have notability criteria but it is not enough to justify an article now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 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. Seems like we have a consensus that coronavirus notwithstanding, the article topic still needs attention from reliable sources that are independent from the subject and doesn't currently have them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Practicing for Love: A Memoir[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Self-published autobiography and all references are directly connected to the author (1-3 are from a website she runs, 4 is the "shop" section of her TV show's website). This article was published the book's author, who appears to have been WP:COI editing about herself for years (literally hundreds of edits). GPL93 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nina Gamble Kennedy as it looks like the author is notable. I looked for reviews of this book in the obvious places (Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly) as well as just in Google. Found nothing usable. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pandemic delayed the official launch of the book, but this does not mean that more press on the book will not be forthcoming. It is simply less organized and more difficult to find. And she does not "run" the website you are talking about. GPL93, why are you espousing false information? Nina07011960 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there. Here on Wikipedia, we are to assume good faith in fellow editors. The posts on the Infemnity blog are written in first-person, so saying that Nina Kennedy "runs" the site is not a stretch. If the press is "less organized" (I don't see how press can be disorganized... it can be lacking, or difficult to locate, but not "disorganized"), why don't you paste links to articles here and we'll do our best to incorporate them into the article? If significant press is coming in future weeks or months, an article on it should not be submitted for creation until then. First the horse, then the cart. I take it from your username that you are Nina Kennedy. Or do you just represent her? Or are you a fan? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Kennedy contributes to the blogs and websites, but she does not run it. The publisher was unable to send adequate press materials because of the pandemic. We are playing a game of catch-up. Surely you're not holding that against her. Nina07011960 (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960 What you are describing is WP:TOOSOON, which is valid grounds for deletion. Also, I apologize if that is not the case but there is clearly a very strong connection Kennedy and Infemnity. In Thirdly, you still need to make a formal WP:COI declaration and you must refrain from making direct edits related to Nina Kennedy in general. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also who exactly is "we"? Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean to tell me that there have been no adjustments made around the pandemic. Nina07011960 (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Plus, Nina Kennedy hosts the show that INFEMNITY produces. She does not own the company. Nina07011960 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, acccording to LinkedIn, Infemnity has two employees, one of whom is Nina Kennedy (creative director).https://www.linkedin.com/company/infemnity-productions DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960 , it is horse (independent coverage). Then cart (Wikipedia article). Kennedy or her publisher's failure to get things done by their own timeline does not matter. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960, if you are Nina Kennedy, which I suspect as "1960" in the username is a match for her year of birth, I would suggest requesting a change in username as you may not want that information out there. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no adjustments around a GLOBAL PANDEMIC????? Nina07011960 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would there be? This is not a web host or a marketing tool this is an encyclopedia of notable topics. Why would we make exceptions and add non-notable topics? GPL93 (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A third time, please disclose your relationship to Nina Gamble Kennedy. You were warned over two years ago by two different editors (Largoplazo and DESiegel) about COI editing and since then you have made HUNDREDs of COI edits and made no COI disclosure. GPL93 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93, do you know whether any of this is grounds for speedy? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39 it very well may qualify under WP:A7/WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39 and GPL93: Articles about Books are out-of-scope for A7. G11 might apply, but since the AfD has been started and views have been expressed, I would advise letting it run, then there is a clear established consensus -- much harder to overturn than a speedy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960 A "GLOBAL PANDEMIC" doesn't magically cause this book to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. Based on your comment and your earlier one, "Surely you're not holding that against her", you appear to be of the belief that articles and content on Wikipedia in any way may be treated as being for the benefit of their subjects. This is an encyclopedia, not a social media platform through which Nina Gamble Kennedy or anyone acting on her behalf should be posting anything here for her benefit or to meet her purposes. A topic qualifies for an article if it meets WP:N—if it meets it now. Not based on anyone's guesses as to whether it will meet WP:N in the future, including guesses based on speculation that the only reason it hasn't met WP:N yet is because of a pandemic and that it surely would have happened by now otherwise. Largoplazo (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to pass notability test WP:GNG or other category. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have WP:PRODed Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey, which was created by this article's author and is another work by Nina Kennedy that does not appear to meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If deprodded, a redirect to Matthew Washington Kennedy, with a few citations copied over, would be a good idea. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiamondRemley39 de-prodded I'll AfD and propose delete then redirect. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 Sounds good. It's been deprodded (and de- and re-tagged). DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps put Draft:The Noshing with Nina Show on your watchlists too. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless multiple independant published reliable sources are found and cited. I looked and did not find any. There should be no prejudice against later recreation if proper sources to demonstrate notability become available later. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete this article, you will be contributing to the lack of diversity on Wikipedia. One would be left to conclude that this lack of diversity is intentional and deliberate. ^[1] Nina07011960 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960 the only thing that has been deliberate and intentional is your using Wikipedia a means of boosting your own profile in spite of multiple warnings not to do so. There is absolutely no evidence that this subject meets any notability criteria. GPL93 (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960 The same rules and principles apply to this article as to all other articles, regardless of the ethnicity of the subjects or the editors. We do not enhance diversity by making exceptions to the standard principles. When and if there is evidence that Practicing for Love is a notable work, as Wikipedia uses that term, we will be happy to have an article about it. Note, it is very rare that a just released work is already notable, although it sometimes happens. When an if there is in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources of this work, there can be an article about it, and not until then. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is not the first time Nina07011960 has accused the Wikipedia community of disrespecting diversity while doubting an article on a product she is trying to promote. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey. My assessment is that the accusation has been made in bad faith. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly redirect to Nina Gamble Kennedy. This article is almost certainly a conflict of interest as the author (or someone connected to her) tries to draw attention to her own book, but Wikipedia is not a promotional service. As all of the legitimate voters above have described very informatively, the book has received none of the significant and independent notice that is required for an encyclopedic article; see WP:BKCRIT in particular. If the pandemic has delayed publicity for the book, that's unfortunate but then WP:TOOSOON becomes applicable, to put it charitably. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, a gsearch has found no useable reviews, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Massachusetts locations by unemployment rate[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:not a fact-dump. This is list is also 6 years out of date. User:Namiba 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. pburka (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Flori4nKT A L K 15:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Behzad Leito[edit]

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

non-notable rapper, a whopping four persian sources, none of which are coverage (and questionable wrt reliability) and nothing better in English language sources. Interviews, listings on an unreliable site (RadioJavan) do not make for notability. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing notable about this person. Reads like a self written bio. Wikipedia is not a resume or a site for promotional material. Wm335td (talk) 16:17, 26 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! 21:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party In Backyard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article notability as per WP:NMUSIC remains questionable. References include non-reliable sources like YouTube and Twitter. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Doomsdayer520, Boleyn, Caro7200, Walter Görlitz, Rorshacma, Dscotty26, Mottezen, Bungle, and JalenFolf: Invite and request for an independent review. Thank you.~Amkgp ✉ 01:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NMUSIC. Subject clearly passes criteria two, as they have released two singles that have charted on national music charts. The one Twitter citation is acceptable per WP:TWITTER, and that is the one primary source cited. I see no issue with keeping this article as a stub, IMO notability is evident. Mbdfar (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:TWITTER, the header says Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. How can you conclude its a reliable source always? ~Amkgp ✉ 18:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am misunderstanding WP:TWITTER, I interpret it as "Self-published [by the subject] or questionable sources as sources on [the subject] themselves." Either way, the Twitter citation is only there to show that the subject is based in Eindhoven as described on their profile. That is not self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Mbdfar (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Admin and others, do have a look to previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party In Backyard which resulted delete. Mbdfaris the creator/author of the page. Views may be biased and non-neutral. ~Amkgp ✉ 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t stop him from being right. SK2242 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SK2242, If he/she is right no-body will stop. But if wrong anywhere or doubtful he/she can be stopped. ~Amkgp ✉ 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must be stopped! ;) Mbdfar (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original AfD discussion does not apply to this version of the article. There is no mention of Bitch Lasagna charting on the UK Official Charts (as that wasn't stated on the first version of the article), and the debate occurred before the release of the second charting single, "Mine All Day". Their arguments for deletion were correct with the information they were given, however, this iteration of the article addresses those concerns and adds updated information. Mbdfar (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artist has charted and therefore passes WP:NMUSIC. SK2242 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SK2242. Subject passes criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO twice. Also the article should be moved to PartyInBackyard. Mottezen (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PewDiePie_vs_T-Series or, at the very least, PewDiePie. Are "Keep" editors treating this as a rote check off of chart criteria rather than reading the article or references, or at least examining the context? Does anyone truly believe the views/sales/charts etc. are a reflection of this producer's involvement rather than of the much publicized competition between PewDiePie and T Series to achieve the most views? It's true, it's "recorded" in the record books as a chart position for this producer, but the placement on the chart is a reflection of solicited social media numbers. Note that RS coverage (not referenced here, but verifiable in PewDiePie_vs_T-Series article) is about PewDiePie or the competition, with this subject receiving the obligatory tangental mention, bu the coverage is not ABOUT this subject here anymore than in the delete comments in the first ADF nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShelbyMarion, I think you raise a lot of valid points. You're right in that the subjects notability stems from his connection with PewDiePie, the media favors covering PewDiePie over the subject, and your statement "...the chart is a reflection of solicited social media numbers" is true to a point (though one could argue that its just how the music industry operates these days). If the subject had only charted with the first single from the PewDiePie_vs_T-Series competition then I surely would agree with your assessment, however, the fact that they charted again a year later shows a continued trend of mainstream success removed from that event. If his involvement in the songs was trivial, he would not share a lead credit. To me, his lack of media presence does not undermine his notability in the pop culture scene as proven by the mainstream music charts, and as supported by WP:MUSICBIO. Mbdfar (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get what you are saying about the second charting song, and it is indeed independent of the competition. I’m a bit troubled, though, that it, too, is connected with PewDiePie and it’s success is invariably tied to the Oprah effect that comes from a person celebrated among Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world. I’d feel a lot more confident voting KEEP if this subject showed some indication of notability outside of a connection to PewDiePie. As it stands, every met criteria—charts and coverage—is under the PewDiePie’s umberella, so to my mind this fails as a stand alone article per WP:NOTINHERIT, and a redirect is more appropriate. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was invited to participate above, but I will abstain because I do not know much about how to assess the notability of Internet personalities. However, I recommend considering WP:ENTERTAINER instead of just the requirements for musicians. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject passes NMUSIC, and is therefore notable. YouTube and Twitter are perfectly acceptable as primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PewDiePie_vs_T-Series as it appears NMUSIC does not apply: subject is a music producer, not the musician that would be covered by that. Regardless of type of involvement, this song that charted falls under the notability of PewDiePie, and there is not provide for automatic notability for each individual involved in producing a song, rather the group as a whole. Most of all, this lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Moreover, A “presumption” derived from specialized charts not listed at WP:GOODCHARTS and does not represent automatic notability with zero dedicated sourced. Reywas92^Talk 08:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail see how NMUSIC does not apply. The subject provided all the instrumentations for the tracks, and NMUSIC specifically covers instrumentalists. As stated above, Party In Backyard does have a lead credit for both of these singles as shown by both charts - notice how they are listed as being by Party In Backyard/PewDiePie". He was not only credited as producer. Because of this, the subject should derive the same notability from the singles that PewDiePie would. Mbdfar (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NMUSIC Wm335td (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenney Myers[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 12:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 12:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find any coverage. - Flori4nKT A L K 15:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bektešević[edit]

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

This article is about a family, but there is no indication of any kind of WP:notability of thi particular family. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% not notable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, these are two different brotherhoods of two different tribes; maybe something could be written about the Bekteshaj of Triepshi and the Bektešević of Bjelice in the articles about the two tribes. The editor who created the article has conflated them into one, but they are very different brotherhoods. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (nn). - Flori4nKT A L K 15:31, 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. Sourcing seems quite well.explored and is below the bar. If someone wants to pursue draftifying or a merge somewhere please drop me a line Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maia (verification language)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability as required by WP:GNG. Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see some sources, but nothing that looks like it would unambiguously clear GNG. Mccapra (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I wrote the article: it's a stub, with less than 500 words, including lists. If you feel that's too much, I can take some out, but it appears to be within the limits at WP:STUBDEF. I used the guidelines at WP:N, which state (among other things) that "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet". I wrote the stub because I'm an engineer and use both hardware description and verification languages daily, and a stub seemed appropriate: it will hopefully encourage others (who known more) to expand on it, with sources. We should also consider that over-zealously enforcing notability guidelines on stubs could simply ensure that no stubs are ever written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EML101 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just name a few sources that establish WP:GNG here, and you can take as long as you wish to add them to the stub. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs are fine if they’re sourced. WP:STUBDEF emphasises the importance of sources and says ‘If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.’ A company or productise own website can’t be used as a source to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MAIA: a framework for networks on chip generation and verification 2005 (ACM) seems to be the main paper on the framework.
Maia EDA Launches New Automated Verification Tool on BusinessWire.
Maia EDA readies functional verification tool on EE Times, assume that's short for Electrical Engineering.

There doesn't seem to be much else. I'd say notability was at best marginal. Why not merge to Hardware verification language and turn that into a decent article, the topic there is certainly notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The EE Times and businesswire refs are copies of a press release originally published on PR Newswire. The same press release was published on other sites[33][34][35][36][37] and contains the usual promotional language.

The reference to ASP-DAC '05: Proceedings of the 2005 Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference January 2005 Pages 49–52 at https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1120725.1120741 is legit. Not quite enough to show notability, though. Related: [ http://maia-eda.net/history ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 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) 06:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Read[edit]

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

Unsourced, nothing on Google, so it may be a hoax (I’m playing safe here however). External links are not related to the article in any way. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Someone removed the statement that he is a rapper. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found one local news item from 2009 when he was a kid skier with a little future potential ([38]). All else to be found are social media and paid publicity sites in which the now-adult man is still promoting himself as a skier who gives occasional interviews about skiing. This WP article accomplishes nothing but more of the same, as a rather desperate act of self-promotion. Admins could possibly Speedy Delete per WP:A7 (no indication of importance} or WP:G11 (unambiguous promotion). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of significance and very little coverage in reliable sources found on Google, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable skiier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 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. I never considered Norway's mountains to be generic. Breathtakingly beautiful maybe but generic never. Forgive me for refusing to endorse that part of the successful delete argument.(this is intended to be a humorous comment) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kolla[edit]

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

The subject is about a non notable mountain in Norway which doesn't cite any sources and no links with other articles. Abishe (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The no.wiki article is sourced. Mccapra (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Is sourced" is not satisfactory when the one source is just a map, as per WP:NGEO "This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." WP:GEOLAND4 does apply but there is not content besides coordinates and a statistic. This is among many (see Category:Mountains of Innlandet) auto-generated by the same banned user without any assertion of notability – Norway has a lot of generic mountains! Reywas92^Talk 02:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to establish GNG and does not pass our SNG. Wm335td (talk) 15:19, 26 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. Lourdes 14:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India's Most Reputed Brands[edit]

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

Looks like this rating was published only in 2016 and 2017 and stopped after BlueBytes News was acquired by Concept Business Intelligence Unit (Concept BIU) in 2018. Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 07:08, 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) 06:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tariku Anega[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and possibly fails WP:ANYBIO. The subject is cited only by 2 sources and both are bare URLs. I couldn't obtain much information about this subject in Google search index. Abishe (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. The subject of the article is an am.wiki user. If they are the same person as the article creator, it’s an autobio. Mccapra (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy. No signs of WP:NPROF. One book is not going to make WP:NAUTHOR, and I'm skeptical about whether the book is notable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the subject's book is more-or-less WP:SPS and also see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Book was published by Lambert which is a subsidiary of OmniScriptum which, I believe, is at least problematic for the sake of establishing notability. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy A7. There may be a language barrier in finding sources here but no notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 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 keep. Lourdes 14:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uchronia[edit]

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

Article is about a neologism with no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Cannot write a verifiable article that passes the general notability guideline. Jontesta (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Term was first used in 1876 and continues to be used in literary criticism. (See my two additions of articles retrieved on JSTOR.) Diane J Young (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is certainly wrong to say there's "no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources". We have Alexandre Franco de Sá on uchronia as "the evocation of a time which evades time itself", associated with Derrida's "democracy to come", Claire S. Brault on uchronia as a way of describing the impossibility of endless economic growth, Aaron Worth on uchronia as a theme in speculative fiction, Claudia Schaefer and Raúl Rodríguez-Hernández on uchronia as "the confluence of ideal time and no time" in Mexican film, and several other substantial discussions of the concept, all in academic journals or edited volumes and all taken from the first page of Google Scholar results. The fact that each of these is using the concept in subtly or substantially different senses raising certain problems, but there's enough common ground in the literature – it always means, in layperson's terms, something like "utopia but with time instead of space" – to make this is a viable broad-concept article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arms & Hearts. Mccapra (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - expansion from jawiki is desirable, seeing as sources are apparently available there. A reminder that enwiki sources explicitly do not have to be in English. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuda clan[edit]

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

The only source cited does not mention the clan at all, and a quick Google search doesn't show any sources. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable. If you look at the ja.wiki article which is about twenty times longer, there are numerous reliable sources in Japanese. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and its corresponding articles are written longer in other foreign languages. The issue is the article needs to be further expanded and needs more sources. Abishe (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Chung[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person; search turns up no independent, reliable sources. MapleSoy (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found he has 270 followers on twitter and widely available books, but no RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject clearly fails WP:GNG and seems to have written with the intention of WP:PROMO and not adhering with WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All references are the subject's own works. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitry Elyashkevich[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements; no sources listed besides credits RF23 (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG and couldn't obtain much information regarding the subject in Google search index. The article fails to cite reliable secondary sources and fail to comply with WP:RS. The sources cited are mostly taken from IMDb which is not recommended to be used as per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Abishe (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person involved in film production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 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. Lourdes 14:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Breakfast[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reliable sourcing for this band. There is only one source in the article. My WP:BEFORE search (seen here) proves I couldn't find any other reliable sourcing for the band. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 03:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 03:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 03:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 03:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Moeller[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable TikTok user. The only WP:RS that I could find was a single CNN transcript from a program that aired today, where he is quoted for two sentences. I was unable to find any other RS's. Phuzion (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Phuzion (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable - only passing mentions in sources. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need much better sourcing to justify an article on a 16-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even in the vacuum of social media following, having 96.1 thousand is peanuts. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:47, 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 keep. Lourdes 14:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Devy[edit]

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

A non notable actress and screenwriter, it is very clearly fails Wikipedia:ACTOR, there no reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. All signs of UPE. 2601:281:8180:50E0:995D:8BDF:2651:DAD8 (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 03:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created this page as per WP:NACTOR policies. She has played significant role in 3 notable films. Murgh Krahi (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom cites lack of reliable sources, but article seems to be well sourced and the articles demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. Passes WP:ANYBIO. pburka (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

pburka, please share where you are finding in-depth references for her work that are not passing mentions. 46.249.231.163 (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are reliable and significant. They appear to have been published in newspapers, and the actor is the primary topic: her name appears in the headlines! Those are obviously not passing mentions. pburka (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are just routine mentions and DGG has explained this several times what is routine and what i reliable. Routine coverage cant be considered relaible.213.128.189.149 (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mixing up WP:RELIABLE and WP:SIGCOV. pburka (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are no sources, most of her roles are minor. It is created by UPE, it is a violation of Wikipedia as per G7, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thisisfamoe19877/Archive, he is one of socks of Famoe left to caught and if we do CU, there will be 100 accounts for him. GSS, has already flagged some of his pages already in the past. There are high chances of votes stacking on this page. 46.249.231.163 (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her role was not of even 5 mins in the two movies out of three she has worked. It was more like special appearances rather than any mainstream role. 46.249.231.163 (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this person has personal problem with the actress because he first tagged this page for deletion without knowing the policies for actors and then they accused me for paid editing. The actress played main lead role in notable films. Murgh Krahi (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is not a right place, let me know where I can send the proof that Murgh Krahi is a paid editor from Famoe sock farm. 213.128.189.149 (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the nominator, you can't !vote so, I have changed it to comment. GSS ^💬 15:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 07:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think there are just enough roles to pass WP:NACTOR, and sourcing doesn't seem too big a problem. Here is another source: https://deadline.com/2017/09/don-buchwald-associates-cassandra-freeman-bohemia-group-lakshmi-devy-1202174014/ – Deadline Hollywood. I don't really see any reason to delete this article. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:04, 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 Snow White's Grotto. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White's Wishing Well[edit]

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

Non-notable fancruft. The article creator has created a lot of these sorts of articles and needs to be warned to stop. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snow White Grotto, which is the actual name of the attraction, and already has an article. Searching for sources does show that "Snow White's Wishing Well" is a common alternative name for the attraction, so it would work as a Redirect, but there certainly do not need to be two separate articles on the same subject. Rorshacma (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. Meters (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 09:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Theatre (Disneyland attraction)[edit]

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

Non-notable fancruft. The article creator has created a lot of these sorts of articles and needs to be warned to stop. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. Just some venue. Meters (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the attraction certainly exists, there does not appear to be enough coverage to sustain an independent article. Its mentioned in books/guides on Disneyland as an attraction in Fantasyland, but nothing really goes beyond mentioning its existence. It could possibly be used as a Redirect to Fantasyland, since it is already mentioned there, but I'm not sure if this article title is actually a plausible search term. Rorshacma (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 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. If someone wishes to create a redirect, feel free to do so after this delete. Lourdes 14:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Plaza (Disneyland)[edit]

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

Uncited, non-notable fancruft. User has created several of these types of articles and they need to be warned to stop. Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced and full of copyrighted maps which the user claims are his own work. While we could find sources for the existence of these central plazas, that does nothing to show notability. I see no claim to notability. Meters (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an independently notable attraction at any Disney park, simply a part of Main Street, U.S.A. or its equivalent. I suppose it could be used as a Redirect to the article on Main Street, but I don't see this as a particularly useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Hello this is Fiscus Brady!!, the creator of the article. I agree that the page could be deleted, but I would rather redirect it to Main Street, U.S.A. The reason I created this article was actually because I was searching for the page itself so I think future users could appreciate the redirect. Fiscus Brady!! (Fiscus Brady!!) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant Enterprise[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Any press I could find about "Brilliant Enterprise" are about different companies with similar names. GPL93 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It should have been speedily deleted. This is just a poorly written advertisement. The article has zero sources. Google and JSTOR searches found nothing significant.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Hopefully a WP:SNOW decision is reached. best, GPL93 (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am satisfied with the argument of Vinegarymass911 - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 03:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dhaka Tribune [39] and Daily Star [40] sources indicate Brilliant Connect is a brand for app voice calls launched by Inter Cloud Ltd. If the article was to survive, the relations between firms and brands would need to be clarified and referenced. But I am not seeing enough coverage for notability whether as a company or a product brand. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Vinegarymass911. - Flori4nKT A L K 15:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletable per nom. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per everything, everywhere, ever. But also because it's obviously not notable and the consensus is to far in the delete direction at this point for it to not be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College Media Network[edit]

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

Promotional and poorly-worded article, sourced to press releases that it does not even bother to link to, borderline speedy deletion. Fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a GNG fail. I might add, the first two paragraphs and most of the third are completely unreferenced. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 01:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-remarkable, run of the mill stuff. Graywalls (talk) 02:16, 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 soft delete. Editors can request the article's undeletion. Lourdes 14:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page had previously been nominated for deletion in 2006 and somehow survived due to lax Wiki-policy. This page still fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search for "Ken Hart" yields nothing, and a search for Hart's only claim to fame (the song "dogface soldier"), yields only an official Army Youtube link to the song. Other than that, this page provides scant support for notability and is composed mostly of fluff related to the subject's community activity in Kentucky. KidAd (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm surprised that 14 years later we still don't have a Dogface Soldier (song) page. Too bad, because it would be an attractive merge target. pburka (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's Dogface (military). KidAd (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note: this article has had a previous AfD and prod so is not eligible for soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment about deletion, but I wanted to share a few sources I found through a casual search on newspapers.com: [41] [42]. I'm sure there are many more like these but I haven't taken too deep a look Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:05, 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.

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia

[1]