Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 May	19 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries yet to compete in Miss Universe pageant[edit]

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

A completely OR list. Nothing anywhere to show that this satisfies notability in lists. Was draftified last year but the creator moved it back without much change. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the need to list something that X has NOT done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If by some miracle this is kept then the title needs to be changed. The current title implies that these countries will compete in this contest at some time in the future, which is crystal-balling, and in some cases (e.g. the Vatican City) highly unlikely. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Father Antonio Rungi tried his best, but his superiors quickly shot down his online beauty pageant pageant as "nun"sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list of x that have not done y is a horrible way to create a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. There are notable omissions, but this isn't one of them; nobody talks/writes about it in the wild. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nn list. - Flori4nKT A L K 16:19, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Smith (motorcyclist)[edit]

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

Can hardly find any information on the internet about him other than first-hand accounts; his page is sloppily written too. Why? I Ask 23:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable motorcycle racer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable motorcyclist. This looks like a a self written bio. Wm335td (talk) 16:33, 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica's Guide to Dating on the Dark Side[edit]

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

Can find no confirmation that this book meets any of the criteria at WP:BKCRIT: #1. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage. (I only found one independent review but still rather brief review at Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, by Kerri Mathew.) #2. It has received no awards. #3. It has not been noted for any contributions to the field. #4. It has not been used as instruction. #5. The author is not historically significant, which may explain why she does not have her own WP article. This book article only reflects its listing in the typical directories; see also WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as two reviews easily found, and one of them is a starred review, a level of positive reception that few books see. Nominator should consider looking for reviews in WP:BEFORE. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can withdraw the nomination but you should avoid accusations. I stated in the nomination that I found one review but considered it to be too brief, and that conclusion could be debated. You also said you found two reviews but did not mention what they are. See what the next voter did. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reviews to the article, which is beyond what AfD calls for. I assume you are watching the article and saw my additions, or have since noticed them. Googling simply the title, sans quotes, and "reviews" retrieves the Publishers Review. Too many book articles are nominated for deletion when the antidote is on the first page of Google. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reviews available that aren't sourced in article include Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, School Library Journal, The Booklist, and others visible in this search. Clearly passes WP:NBOOK Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviews from PW and SLJ were present in the article some time ago here, though not directly linked--they were copy/pasted from Amazon and linked to that instead. It's too bad the editor removed the info without trying to salvage the PW reception, as that indicated notability, and might have prevented this AfD. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, and WP:GNG, this book has received multiple independent reviews that is now reflected by the article (thanks to DiamondRemley39), i note that when the article was nominated, the article mentioned that the book is held by aroung 1100 libraries (see here), a pretty good indication that there will be reviews out there. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. - Flori4nKT A L K 16:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxpay[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. Graywalls (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neuton (network)[edit]

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

Promotional article that is a borderline G11 speedy deletion, with dubious promotional sources. Note that the Reuters piece is paid advertising and the Forbes piece (since removed) is by an ex-contributor. Does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete highly promotional non-notable subject. Graywalls (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 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 speedy keep. Duplicate AfD (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society[edit]

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

this article was made and mostly edited by an editor who cites unreliable or made up sources. they have made an article for himself(seemingly) the article is very promotional and seems paid for. i have scoured the web and cannot find a single source on this other than this article. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clone commando sev There is already an AfD open on this article. Did you mean to comment on that rather than start a new one? Mccapra (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that one i made but i messed it up. thats why i made this one. do you know if the creator can close a afd? Clone commando sev (talk) 03:32, 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. There is a consensus that the subject meets NPROF. (non-admin closure) ——Serial^# 12:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Stolovitzky[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a researcher who does not hold a senior academic position and whose fellowships are all in non-selective organisations. Does not seem to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP as having a fellowship is not (by itself) criteria for notability. --MewMeowth (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nominator and MewMeowth are both blatantly incorrect in their deletion rationales. Having a fellowship in a selective society is, by itself, a criterion for notability; see WP:PROF#C3. His fellowship in the American Physical Society and in the American Association for the Advancement of Science both clearly qualify for that criterion, and his IBM Fellowship arguably does as well. (The redlinked fellowships and awards, not so much.) He also has highly-cited publications as listed in a Google scholar search, easily enough for WP:PROF#C1, which the nominator does not even seem to have considered or read. The nomination rationale that his position is not senior is both irrelevant and false — he appears to hold a somewhat high-level position within the type of employement he holds, as a researcher at an industrial lab. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of those are highly selective, and an IBM fellowship does not imply any significant impact outside of that company. In fact, most IBM fellows do not have Wikipedia articles. Having a highly cited publication in Google Scholar is hardly a high achievement as you can easily fool Google's algorithm and create lots of backlinks to artificially inflate a paper's importance. I honestly think this article reeks of self-promotion and is better suited for an about.me page. --MewMeowth (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MewMeowth: are you aware that personal attacks, both against article subjects and article creators, are as forbidden in AfDs as they are anywhere else in Wikipedia? If not, you should be. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is *anything* I've said a personal attack? Since when is treating a spammy article as such considered a personal attack, especially in a place meant for these type of discussions like AfD? Aw, will someone get personally offended if I think their article is spam? Ridiculous. In fact, if anything, when you say I am blatantly incorrect, that is a personal attack. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You accused the article subject, without evidence, of artificially inflating his citation counts, and you accused the article creator, without evidence, of being the same person as the article subject and of creating this article as self-promotion. Those are personal attacks. On the contrary, when I say you are incorrect, I am merely stating a fact about your contribution to the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you're inferring. I have never accused anyone, I was simply stating a fact which is that Google Scholar is not a good metric for notability. In fact, I haven't even had a look at the article's history or creator up until now, but it's even clearer to me when I see now that it was single-handedly created by one individual (and a quick Google search would suggest they are an IBM employee as well) with no other edit history besides this article (that would at least merit a COI tag), and which was even more boastful in its original version before it was subsequently toned down by other editors. --MewMeowth (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is flawed but adequate for many purposes, when used judiciously. That the article was boastful in a prior form before getting cleaned up is not grounds for deletion; it just shows the Wikipedia process at work. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you David Eppstein I am indeed blatantly wrong about the APS Fellowship. If there is an established consensus at AfD that Fellowship of the AAAS weighs heavily in favour of notability I’m not aware of it. Since membership of the AAAS is open to all and its Fellowships are quite common, I would think not, but may be wrong about that too. I will wait and see what others’ views are on this and on the article as a whole. Mccapra (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were not wrong about APS. There are over 10,900 fellows (Source - warning: your browser will struggle opening this), of which only 862 have Wikipedia articles (14%). That's hardly selective. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are not over 10,900 fellows. That number of fellowships has been awarded since 1921, an average of about 110 per year. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are factually wrong. Please do open the website and see for yourself. It's a list of APS fellows, not members. There are 10,900+ fellows and 55,000 members. --MewMeowth (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence of the source that you linked says, "The APS Fellow Archive is a historical record of APS Fellows, from 1921 to the present", which is exactly what I said above. Or do you really believe that all of those awarded fellowships 99 years ago are still fellows today? And who said anything about members? Please withdraw your accusation of lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, being factually wrong is not lying, it is simply stating something that is untrue. I'm making no assumptions as to what your intention is. Secondly, why is it that you are only counting alive individuals to make your point? And even then my argument stands as the list of 10,900 is only from 1921 onwards, so the majority of them are probably alive. In any case, I don't see how fellowships would be withdrawn or how is that in any way relevant to the discussion. The reality is that 10,900 fellowships were awarded by the APS since 1921 which compared to the examples in WP:PROF#C3 does not make it selective. Nevertheless, it could pass but it says it can only partially do so if the subject has had a significant impact, which is not clear in this case. --MewMeowth (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing community consensus has established that Fellowship in the APS qualifies per WP:PROF#C3, and for good reason: it represents being in the top half-percent of American physicists [1]. The IEEE, which is a specific example listed in WP:PROF#C3, has elevated an average of 283 people to Fellow status each year since 1999. That's almost 3 times more than the APS. If the IEEE is selective, the APS is selective. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 5,887 IEEE fellows elected since at least 1934. That's almost half as many as APS. Provide a link where this long-established consensus regarding APS can be found and I'll shut up. --MewMeowth (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], at which point I stopped looking. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I was hoping for something other than AfD comments but I suppose that'll do. I find it interesting that some of the people commenting on those examples are regulars on APS-related discussions. Maybe they're fellows, too? --MewMeowth (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussions from the WP:PROF talk page also use the APS as an example of a scholarly society that meets C3 [17][18][19]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find more than a couple of mentions of APS there, and nothing that could be remotely considered established consensus. But, I think you've done enough to prove your point. I myself have gone to the length of installing a program to handle large text files (and look up its documentation as its regular expression syntax is not standard) in order to extract the number of APS fellows from that list. I guess it's not in their interest to show the actual number in plain sight? --MewMeowth (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learned societies are large organizations that work by committee and not known for having useful websites, much like universities. Plus, the total count is not actually a very interesting number — as mentioned above, it includes dead people. The annual reports give the current membership and the number of new Fellows elected each year, because that's what gives a sense of how the organization is operating now. And if some professor happens to care about the total number of APS Fellows who have ever existed, they'll just turn to their student and tell them to find out. And the student will download the HTML, open it in Emacs, trim out the preamble and the epilogue, run grep "<strong>" APS\ Fellow\ Archive.html | wc, wait an hour to make it seem like the task was difficult, and then tell their professor "10,904". XOR'easter (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead people are not fellows of anything, unless they are in a story by Nikolai Gogol. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NPROF C3 per several of the fellowships. I think the New York Academy of Science is also fairly weighty; it also has a small number of honorees for a large membership. WP:NPROF C1 also looks fairly solid, with several highly-cited paper, including some first/last author (in a field where I think that matters). Comment that WP:NPROF explicitly does not require working at a university, although we do consider title in marginal cases (which this is not). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep He passes WP:PROF#C3; yes, Fellowship in the APS is very selective (the number of Fellows is a small percentage of everyone who has worked in physics over the past century, which is a lot of people). Most APS Fellows don't have Wikipedia articles because nobody has taken the time to write them yet, but in principle, all of them merit articles. Likewise, Fellowship in the AAAS is much more exclusive than membership, and Stolovitzky is a Fellow, not just a member. He also passes WP:PROF#C1 with an ISI Web of Science h-index of 48, which is more than high enough to qualify in any field. (Google Scholar, which is more relaxed about what it includes, gives him an h-index of 61, which is in line with how it typically gives somewhat larger figures. It is perhaps a little too relaxed, and ISI a little too strict. Either way, he passes WP:PROF#C1.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NPROF as a fellow of APS (note to MewMeowth, i am not). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 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 Lindenwood Lions football. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Lindenwood Lions football team[edit]

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

The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is an article about a Division II team with a losing record. While Division I seasons typically pass the referenced standards, this is not so for Division II. In the past, Division II seasons have only been kept when there is something extraordinary about the season. I see nothing about this article to set it apart from an ordinary Division II season. Cbl62 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I believe 2017 Angelo State, 2018 Angelo, and 1974 BU are the last three AfD concerning Division II teams. Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lindenwood Lions football, as a valid search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect with no prejudice against re-creration. Sometimes Division II seasons are notable, sometimes they are not. This looks like an enthusiastic editor got started and then stopped, so it's not really adding anything of note to the encyclopedia. Typically Divisoin II programs are handled as a team article or perhaps a conference article for the season... or not at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lindenwood Lions football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be easily converted to a better article with the right sources and more information. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KingSkyLord: "the right sources" -- Can you present two or three examples of the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that you believe would enable this article easily to meet the WP:GNG requirement? Cbl62 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is no consensus to delete this article; the question to be weighed is whether to keep or redirect. ——Serial^# 12:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that delete and redirect are kind of the same...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:27, 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 redirect to Golden Gate Park#Lakes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elk Glen Lake[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability (WP:NGEO) - other than the GNIS reference and a few local news stories about a dead body found in the lake, there's basically nothing to be found. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Golden Gate Park#Lakes. Not notable, and even if it were, per WP:NOPAGE there’s no indication why this pond needs a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETC Group (energy efficiency consultant)[edit]

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

Vaguely promotional, not enough to satisfy CSD. With current sources, fails GNG and NCORP. --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 20:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 20:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure about notability but WP:TNT sure applies. NavjotSR (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existing references are all based on interviews and company announcements/PR (fails WP:ORGIND). I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 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) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travel All Russia LLC[edit]

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

Not notable per Wikipedia standards; article only gets a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See WP:PAGEVIEW and WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of pageviews, this article fails WP:NCORP. The Better Business Bureau doesn't substantiate notability, it covers over 400,000 local businesses according to our article. While the World Travel Awards are themselves notable, travel awards are very common, and don't mean very much. Being the #1204 fasted growing company does not make that company inherently notable, and the listing certainly doesn't have in-depth coverage. Rail Ninja and Russian Trains are both promotional websites. The CNN article mentions the company in passing, as does the New York Times. Further searching indicates that other mentions are passing about what company a journalist took or that a member of the Illegals Program worked there. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 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. czar 02:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise118[edit]

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

Not notable per Wikipedia standards; ~~article only gets a couple pageviews per day~~ Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See WP:PAGEVIEW and WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless the various awards push this company into notability, it hasn't met the requirements based on references. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 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! 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. N. Sabapathy Mudaliar[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources are very weak and do not demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG. An endorsed prod was removed before addition of very weak source. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG; not from English language sources anyway Spiderone 10:36, 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. Forbes contributor articles are unreliable and not indicators of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen McGrane[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The sources are her employers profile page, a couple of blogs an advert for a book and another advert dressed up as an interview. Nothing that even hints at notability. No doubt excellent at what she does, but well below the line of Wikipedia notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, accomplished professional, not notable. Caro7200 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep McGrane is well-known in her field of content strategy and website accessibility. The Google Books search alone shows multiple academic and popular press books that cite her work, showing notability per WP:ACADEMIC. Additionally a quick search just now garnered additional sources like this Forbes article, a CMS Wire article, and an appearance on the Nieman Lab podcast. I have added several of the books as sources. Sweet kate (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just added a few additional sources to her article. For what it's worth, in addition to the pages of Google Books results I alluded to above that cite her, I counted over a hundred articles mentioning her, podcasts that invited her on, or interviews by people and publications in her field before I stopped opening Google search results. She is often cited/referenced in content about content strategy and adaptive content, additionally passing WP:AUTHOR #1 (The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors). Sweet kate (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per Sweet kate. According to Forbes article she "wrote the book on .. Content Strategy for Mobile." It's a specialized area of interest, but significant in a world where many people use mobile phones for internet access. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTRESUME and the Forbes article was written by a contributor, not an editorial staff member, which is against the (metaphorical) rules. Trillfendi (talk) 15:52, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of Stars[edit]

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

Nonnotable tourist attraction. It is not an authentic "Alley of Stars", i.e., it has no official standing whatsoever, just a random collection of marks devoted to various stars from all over the world. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was some reliable coverage of this when it was created ([20]) but it was all one paragraph or so, and that's it (so ONEEVENT etc.). At best I can suggest that this text is transwikid to wikivoyage:Warsaw/Śródmieście where it is not mentioned right now at all (another indication this is a really very, very low key tourist attraction). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus. ——Serial^#

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obada Adnan[edit]

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

non notable actor, 0 named credits. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not delete Obada Adnan article , he is notable actor ,and he is credited in many movies - go search in google for Obada Adnan, you will see many websites talked about him, like:

https://www.videodetective.com/person/obada-adnan-18056322 (This is a website that not anyone can add or write something in it)

There are also the (Arabian) elcinema and IMDb, and some other websites

It literally says nothing about him that iMDb doesn't say. It's not coverage and it isn't reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are another websites along with IMDb that I took informations from, like arabian elcinema :

https://elcinema.com/en/person/2156931/

,and video detective ( https://www.videodetective.com/person/obada-adnan-18056322

Alex1981march (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC) comment added by Alex1981march (talk • contribs) 20:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I can write more informations about him, but I choosed the most mentioned ones Alex1981march (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) ——-[reply]

Please let me know if you want me to add more informations about him(that are not included in IMDB) Alex1981march (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This website(popular baby names) has mentioned Obada Adnan ,link: https://www.popular-babynames.com/name/obada

Where it says “There are 3 actors and actresses with the first name Obada” And Obada Adnan WAS ONE OF THEM(Actors with the first name Obada) Alex1981march (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is WP:TOOSOON for an article on the subject, in my opinion. He is still very young, and may well meet the notability criteria in the future—but, for now, I don't believe the article is justifiable. However, the creator has indicated in this AfD that he/she may improve the article, so I will be happy to revisit my vote should any progress be made. Dflaw4 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 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) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna Asaf Ali Marg[edit]

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

This road does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 18:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable road, per WP:GEOROAD, roads must have "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject" if they are not large highways. This road satisfies neither of those criteria. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 10:37, 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 and redirect to Qeleshe. Deleting unverified content, then creating redirect to qeleshe as a sensible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian hat[edit]

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

The only sources for this stub deal with something depicted in a novel by Rabelais. This source seems to use the term to describe the qeleshe. This article should be deleted or redirected to Qeleshe. Ibadibam (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete we don’t even know for sure if it was talking about that hat. Extremely vague and non-encyclopedic “article” that would not be useful to anyone. Dronebogus (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 10:38, 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. Rename and trim required Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle for the 2019–20 Western Libya offensive[edit]

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

This article by a blocked user is problematic and I am seeking consensus on what to do with it. My inclination is to delete because the whole concept of an ‘order of battle’ in this campaign seems inappropriate, and the creator has pulled together a wide variety of sources, reliable and unreliable, to create a topic which the sources themselves do not discuss. I therefore think it fails WP:SYNTH. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agreed that order of battle articles on minor, low-level battles confined to small areas (relatively speaking of course) are inappropriate and fail to meet the thresholds for articles. They're mostly mere copypastes from their main articles' infoboxes. Lightspecs (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but numerous other articles do this - see Order of battle for the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, Order of battle for Operation Olive Branch, Order of battle for the Battle of Mosul (2016–17) and Order of battle for the Raqqa campaign (2016–17). If they are not problematic, then why is this article? Under your claims, these articles would violate Wikipedia:SYNTH also. If the issue is the name of the article, change it to List of units involved in 2019–20 Western Libya offensive. The original creator of the article being blocked is irrelevant, I do not know reason for their block but no bad-faith edits had seemed to be made on the article of discussion, so if that is the cause for concern I think it is frivolous. The purpose of the article is seemingly to demonstrate the units involved in the campaign in Western Libya (which I might add is geographically larger than Afrin, the Raqqa countryside or Mosul to address User:Lightspecs point), as those articles do for individual offensives in Iraq and Syria. There is no false statements based on the conclusions of the articles, if you bother to read the sources, each article describes or refers to each group listed regarding their participation within the offensive (just as is done on the other pages I listed). If you have issue with inclusion of one group included, due to its source, then dispute that or delete it with sufficient reasoning. There are issues with some of the sources indeed, some reliable and others not, but it would be more suited to fix the article. If the article is too be deleted, its contents should at least be transferred to 2019–20 Western Libya offensive's infobox under the "Units involved" section and the List of armed groups in the Libyan Civil War article. --PanNostraticism (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I must confess I see no problem with this article. We have many other articles on orders of battle. What makes this one a particular problem? It's hardly unsourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two issues for me: firstly this is a patchwork of sources to assemble a picture that no individual source supports, so I think it's clearly SYNTH. I agree the same is probably largely true for the other 'order of battle' articles mentioned above by User:PanNostraticism. Secondly, on scale, for me the issue isn't as User:Lightspecs describes it. I think order of battle articles are fine for small, specific confrontations where there is an actual battle in one place and the participants involved are known and spoken about by most people reporting on it, e.g. First Battle of Bull Run. The article we're looking at here isn't really an 'order of battle' at all, it's a list of anyone who has got involved in a months-long conflict anywhere at any time. That could perhaps be addressed in the article title, but the SYNTH can't. Mccapra (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good solution would be deleting the article but moving the content into the main page. What are your thoughts on this? PanNostraticism (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Having an in-article list mentioning those forces which are attested to by RIS would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to "List of units involved in 2019–20 Western Libya offensive" - To move all these units into the infobox or the main body of the 2019–20 Western Libya offensive would just bloat it endlessly. In addition, I understand but do not agree with Mccapra's criticism. First of all, by renaming the article, one can avoid the baggage associated with "order of battle" without having to delete it. Secondly, how is it SYNTH? The information of different sources are not combined to create something new - a unit takes part in a operation or it does not, and this is mentioned in sources. I do not think that creating a mere list is already original research. Applodion (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that makes sense. Renaming and removing the unreliably sourced elements will resolve this I think. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a multitude of independent, persistent coverage in reliable sources attests to both the campaign's notability and the order of battle therein. Any renaming discussion should probably tale place on the talk page. Also "Keep per nom" :) ——Serial^# 12:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajith Sivanandan[edit]

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

non notable business person. working for google doesn't equate to notability. no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to the position this person occupies, they receive a lot of mentions in certain news articles. No coverage, however, is independent from that role; it's really moreso coverage of Google India than the individual here. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 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. (non-admin closure) - Flori4nKT A L K 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue justice[edit]

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

Does not read like an encyclopedic article. A a s i m 17:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article as been proposed for deletion because it does not read like an encyclopedia entry. What can I do to edit this article to better conform to an encyclopedia entry? I've included academic sources and have tried to word it in a way that doesn't promotes advocacy, but rather capture a part of the research/discussions that are occuring around sustainable ocean development in the lead-up to the United Nations Ocean Decade on Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. Dalyocean (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable although the article needs some rewriting. Mccapra (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a legitimate concept related to a theory called the Blue economy. While it does need heavy CE to conform with WP:MOS, that is something that can be undertaken without deletion. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will address the comments above to have the article better conform to the WP:MOS. Thank you for your help. Dalyocean (talk) 16:12, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceslav Ciuhrii[edit]

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

The notability of this article subject is doubtful. He is a successful businessman but the article has been constructed around sources confirming his appointment as chair of the national tennis federation. This probably wouldn't make him notable on its own, and the sources look unimpressive. A Romanian speaker may find more to support this, but if not I think there is a good case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have serious doubts that his status as president of the National Tennis Federation of Moldova is a boost for notability, given that that organization doesn't have any significant coverage that I can find. The Romanian language article has scarcely more information about him, and they also lack an article for that organization. Surely he is a successful person, but not notable as far as I can tell. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness (book series)[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't been able to find any reviews or other coverage of the series or any of the books within it. Granted, I haven't specifically sought sources for all 68 (!) volumes in the series, and the existence of another author named David L. Robbins makes finding sources more difficult than it might otherwise be, but even if some reviews of the individual books do exist, it doesn't follow that the series in toto is notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:48, 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. Much sadness Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK Chemical Reaction Hazards Forum[edit]

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

As the person who discovered the death of the article's author, former admin Ronhjones, I come to this nomination with a heavy heart. I fpound this page through the first version of his user page and had no idea what to do with the article ... I've come to the conclusion that deletion is the best option. I can't find any evidence that the article subject meets the notability guideline for organisations, simply because I cannot find any inndependent coverage anywhere that is at all significant; I can only find fleeting mentions of the article subject through Google/Google Scholar/Google Books ... and even in the article's own external links, which I've tried to fix to make that point clear. Of the links to the article in the main namespace, one is a disambiguation link and the other two are borderline promotional. Ronhjones created the page when he was a relative newbie to Wikipedia. He was the webmaster of the organisation's website per the article's talk page; indeed the Wayback Machine's coverage of the organisation's site stops on 3 April 2019, four days before his passing. It seems that at some point the organisation was renamed to UK Technical Process Safety Forum; I can't find any significant coverage under that name, nor can I find any by taking "UK" out of the search term of either name ... the new name should not be confused with the Process Safety Forum, which is a different organisation. Graham87 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent quite a while looking for sourcing, and there just isn't much. I'd agree with Graham that the organization fails WP:NORG. There are a few sources that mention it in passing, but no WP:SIGCOV.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If there are sources to be shown, I suggest running them past the other voters in the afd. If that persuades them, otherwise the outcome is clear. The vote concerning sources was made 15 days ago and this has had a relist and a quality vote would have provided them at the time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest Vacations[edit]

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

The only articles I can find about this company are that it was abruptly shut down; that alone does not establish notability. Most of the article's content is not encyclopedia content Wikieditor600 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are quite a few references through Newspapers.com that meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, the article needs to be cleaned of promotional and un-encyclopedic material. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. The rather vague "quite a few references" reasoning without providing links isn't compelling to me and it says a lot that the most common references are about the company's sudden closure (but again I can't find one that meets CORPDEPTH). Topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you by any chance look through Newspapers.com? If not, I will be happy to supply the links later today. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the dearth of persistent, independent coverage indicates the company fails our notability guidelines. ——Serial^# 12:19, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Planet Travel[edit]

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

Not notable per Wikipedia standards; article averages only a couple pageviews per day; orphan Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See WP:PAGEVIEW and WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the dearth of persistent, independent coverage indicates the company fails our notability guidelines. ——Serial^# 12:20, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket Ghana[edit]

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

Not notable per Wikipedia standards; article averages only a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See WP:PAGEVIEW and WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dearth of persistent, independent coverage indicates the company fails our notability guidelines.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedily deleted by Anthony Bradbury under criterion G5. This deletion does not prejudice recreation of the article at a later time. creffett (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjyou[edit]

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

Run of the mill youtuber, no indepth coverage in any RS. PR mentions aside, this has nothing in any RS. period. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. I'm going to shorten it down as nearly the entire article is NPOV. Vermont (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam. Mccapra (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a run of the mill youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Conrad Hennegar "Coon" Arbaugh[edit]

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

Probably not notable enough for an article. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sounds like a NN settler. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 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 redirect to Karl Rove. Must be redirected to preserve attribution post-merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove in the George W. Bush administration[edit]

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

I've already merged all the content with the main Karl Rove article. There's no justification for keeping a separate article. There were no size constraints in the main Rove article that justified a fork. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seperation of a larger biogrpahical article is unjustified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody else. Dronebogus (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The nominator tells us plainly that they have merged content already. Deletion is therefore inappropriate per WP:ATD-M, WP:CWW and WP:MAD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Andrew Davidson WP:ATD-M. Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karl Rove if all the information has already been added there. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems most appropriate per Andrew JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karl Rove, all the content is already there, merging is pointless. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:32, 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! 22:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Walker (Arena football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Can't find any coverage on him (note there is another Washington State defensive back who played professionally Brian Walker (American football)). Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any indepdent sourcing. Team bios from the teams he was part of do not count towards meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dearth of persistent, independent coverage indicates the subject fails our notability guidelines. ——Serial^# 12:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON, not enough independent sourcing to establish WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete such articles really seem to be nothing more than a free promotion space for someone trying to make it in the NFL. While I respect that, Wikipedia is not a free hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 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 redirect to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales. The argument appears to be BLP1E Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Paul[edit]

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

Besides being the driver of the car that crashed the day Princess Diana died, no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial anyway and most of the content already exists in Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales: the only material this article contains that the others do not appears to be the ~200 word "Personal background" section, which can easily be incorporated elsewhere. The rest of it just regurgites the day of the crash and the conspiracies that followed it. (Redirect per WP:ATD-R and to preserve the history after merging material.) ——Serial^# 12:30, 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! 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiprocket[edit]

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

run of the mill company. Its fundrasing was discussed as a news story, as all funding is given space in newspapers. nothing in depth in any RS. Fails SIGCOV. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject is covered by economic times india, which is a reputable source here in India and world. As for the concern regarding funding articles, tech crunch and Entrepreneur not just mention funding but also discusses the Shiprockets functionality, and they both are notable. Mdvrtauseef (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC) — Mdvrtauseef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@User:Mdvrtauseefno source gives any indepth coverage. Run of the mill companies have usual PR coverage, that does not make them pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company, largely describing its start-up funding, appointments and being one of 15 recipients of a non-notable award. The factual accuracy appears questionable: the article says Shiprocket started in 2017, but their website says 2012; the relations of this product proposition with Kartrocket and BigFoot Retail Solutions are not covered. Aside from routine coverage of company announcements, there are advertorial supporting references (e.g. The Asian Age). The company has had coverage of another funding announcement this month [21] but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AllyD's analysis seems wholly acceptable: dubious sourcing combined with a dearth of reliable sourcing is a pretty-slam dunk NCORP fail. ——Serial^# 12:32, 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! 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gottlieb (literary agent)[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article curation / review process. No indication of wp:notability. The number of references seems more related to a skilled wikipedia article writer. (Possibly showing literary agent expertise :-) ) Of the 30 references given, the closest ones I found were two covering his expulsion from the trade association for ethics issues and one medium length interview.

The other references included some self-created ones, listings, plus various mentions of him or quotes of him. The latter did establish that he was or is considered to be prominent within his field locally and probably also at the state level. In a reference search I basically found the same thing. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable literary agent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I deleted some of the information in the article after I haven't found any reliable sources. Check the "Talk" page where I discussed the subject in detail. It is relevant because some of the sources somehow where mentioned as "notable" above and it simply doesn't reflect reality. One of the sources (on which most of the information is based) doesn't even exist.
Regarding the deletion, since it is not voting here but expressing opinion, I'd like to "comment" instead of saying "keep" or "delete" since these words indicate or hint at "voting" in my opinion. After checking the citations, I established that Mark Gottlieb is notable on the state level (New York), just like North8000 said in his comment above. Due to the fact that New York plays very big role in publishing in the US, I tend to think that Gottlieb is notable enough according to the sources. Second, literary agents's notability is somewhat in "gray water" but my opinion is that notability in such a case should be demonstrated by the number of notable authors a literary agent represents. So, it is the second argument in favor of keeping the page. I brought my arguments to open a normal discussion and I would ask other editors to bring their arguments and not just say "not notable" since it doesn't look serious. I can clearly see when a page is just a promotional fake and when it needs more research and investigation.2601:1C0:CB01:2660:7D1B:85DC:C224:9B4F (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's thorough WP:BEFORE: I agree that the majority of sources available are either SPS, press releases, primary or merely passing mentions of the WP:MILL variety. ——Serial^# 12:35, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAPDA Cadet College Tarbela[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WAPDA colleges are well known throughout the country. I think it is notable enough to remain in mainspace. (uSaamo 08:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by USaamo (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 12:52, 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 keep. No consensus to delete the article has emerged. (non-admin closure) ——Serial^# 12:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Fernando[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria - was a shortlived military aide attached to a mission in London AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER as a brigadier, which is equivalent to general officer rank in countries that use brigadier general. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while rank satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is just a presumption of notability, i.e that "they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." I'm not seeing that for Fernando. Mztourist (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER since 1) he is a General officer and 2) is in command of an army Division. Cossde (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER, as explained above. Edwardx (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the actual coverage does not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SOLDIER. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSOLDIER, but also per the coverage of the not-insignificant international incident that occurs when an arrest warrant is issued for someone on a diplomatic mission. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider refocusing. I see a lot of WP:1E coverage, but whether the article should be refocused can be discussed on the talk page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fellows of IEEE Power Electronics Society[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review/curation process. If this list were created, it would have hundreds on it, and thousands on the other division withing IEEE. Basically this just makes a whole article for one particular person getting it. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criterion for inclusion is obvious, and the list makes good sense for navigational purposes (for example, it could provide chronological ordering and an at-a-glance view of what the awards were for, which a category can't). "Hundreds" of entries (only 221, it looks like) would not be too many for a manageable list. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: When I said that the actual list is hundreds, I didn't mean that it was too big / shouldn't be an article. I really meant that the article has not been created, this is just an Ali Emadi article.North8000 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: see my response to Ajf773, below. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: It's not just an Ali Emadi article anymore. So far, I've filled in the Fellows elected in 2010 through 2013, as well as 2020, from here. Some of them already have articles, so the list has bluelinks. XOR'easter (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These lists of society fellows serve an encyclopedic purpose beyond the corresponding categories (in this case Category:Fellow Members of the IEEE) by organizing the fellows by criteria such as election date or (in this case) by societies within the larger institute. This specific list should not be considered in isolation, but as a part of a broader list of all IEEE Fellows, split out in this way to make it more manageable. And as a subtopic both specifically called out by its society [22] and used as one of the main organizational criteria of the full IEEE fellows listing, I think it has enough independent significance for a separate sub-list. Given that the IEEE Fellow category as a whole has around 1800 articles, and this list represents a relatively narrow subset of that category, I don't think it is likely to be infeasibly large. (Here from a note on my talk page, but it was about deletion sorting, not canvassing.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: See my response above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just one name on a list does not need an article. There are a number of these articles that are indexed here: List of IEEE fellows. Perhaps they should all be merged into this one article? Ajf773 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That line of reasoning does not support the deletion outcome you are using it to support. It would support reorganizing the list of fellows into a single list of all IEEE Fellows, not blindly deleting parts of the list of all fellows merely because they are in component societies whose fellow members have not yet been collected up. Deletion is not for cleanup. And as there are already roughly 1800 articles on IEEE Fellows (in the corresponding category), the actual outcome supported by your argument, merger rather than deletion, would create an awkwardly large list. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few more names have been included since I commented here. Although now I see just three names of people with articles in a sea of names without links nor any references to support their notability. We are simply not a directory of non notable people or entities. Ajf773 (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list of people passes WP:NACADEMIC's point 3. Update: Updated the reference link to point to all IEEE Power Electronics Society's fellows --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone on this list is presumptively wiki-notable per WP:PROF#C3. XOR'easter (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list was created with intention to be similar to other existing lists such as List of fellows of IEEE Computational Intelligence Society, part of my de-orphaning article efforts. It should have been sufficiently expanded to its current state which I did not do. The list should be treated as one of the sub-lists of the main list, List of IEEE fellows. It can also be clearly seen that the list can be easily expanded which I admit I did not do it at point of creation. Also, this list is a sub list and not a catch all for IEEE fellows (which will make it very large) but specifically for the IEEE members of a particular society --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / withdrawn It's a different article now. It had sat unedited since January 15th as just a "Ali Emadi is a Fellow" article and it took one day at AFD to do the trick. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and congrats to all who forced it to become real. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Glicker[edit]

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

Previously deleted in 2005 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Glicker but recreated in 2007 and not really noted since then. Declined an A7 on it today because of claims of significance however, I cannot verify any of those and especially cannot find any reliable sources talking about him or his allegedly "award-winning, multimillion-dollar company".

He has been cited as the source for a couple of articles back in 2006 [23] [24] [25] but that's been it. There is an article in the NYT from back in 1987 that might be about him [26] but I cannot access it and even if, a single source would not be enough to support an article. Regards So Why 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Being cited a few times (for the exact same thing) and hosting one podcast are not signs of notability. Whether or not the NYTimes source actually refers to him is also irrelevant, as even there he is only a side-mentioned player of Photon. None of the available sources therefore constitute significant coverage, and none match the claims made in our article. IceWelder [✉] 12:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't know any articles were even deleted back in 2005. Considering notability was not even started until 2006, if an article was deleted back in 2005, it almost certainly should be deleted now, there are some potential exceptions where things in the last 15 years made the person more notable, and article on Gerrit W. Gong might have failed back in 2005 (he was a university vice president with some academic record, but I doubt it could have been enough to pass academic notability), but this is not one of those cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet notability criteria. Innovamus (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator that the article presented a credible claim of significance, but there is an absolute dearth of persistent, independent and thorough coverage to meet our basic requirements. ——Serial^# 12:42, 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. TNT case so an attempt at a properly sourced article is welcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westernisation in Hong Kong[edit]

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

The whole article is one big piece of original synthesis. Most of the references don't even mention westernisation or argue that what they describe is westernisation; they are just used to highlight specific topics declared "westernisation" by this article, with no general overview. Better sources exist, for example this study on westernisation (and the lack thereof) in Hong Kong. Bringing the article in line with what sources actually say about the subject would, however, amount to rewriting it completely. (This reason was copied from a comment posted in 2017 on the article's talk page, and it remains relevant) Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. .As you say, better sources exist. So add them. The things described are so obviously Westernization in any meaningo f the word that the title is appropriate. The article could of course be greatly expanded DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or stubify - better sources exist, and we might well have a suitable article on Westernization in Hong Kong, but this is not a suitable article but a mix of original synthesis, whether or not DGG agrees that the synthesis is correct. It's not just a matter of tweaking it a little here and there; the whole page needs to be rewritten, the vast majority of the current sources needs to be discarded, and a new page needs to be written from the bottom up. This kind of rewriting hasn't happened in the past two and a half years. Having a page with content that violates our core content policies and without useful sources is of no benefit to the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 21:03, 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! 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goorm[edit]

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

Advertisement of a company. No indepth coverage. Fails WP:NCORP Numan765 (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (found no WP:SIGCOV; nn) - Flori4nKT A L K 15:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The provided references concern the firm's GoormIDE, and are largely primary. While not being capable of doing an effective search for Korean sources on 구름 distinct of the wider meaning, I am not seeing evidence that the company is distinctly notable. AllyD (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient persistent, in-depth coverage to pass the most basic requiements of NCORP. ——Serial^# 12:44, 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! 22:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Alexander (basketball)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, lacking multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources. Career does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played for a top level professional team.--User:Namiba 12:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBASKETBALL lists specific leagues, not a generic "top level professional team"; which one did he meet?—Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the best I could find, though the commonness of the name makes searching difficult. There's also this obit but the source is not independent. No obituaries were found in Detroit Free Press or The Detroit News as of yet, but given recency of death (two days ago) those may still be coming. Waiting to see if additional sources develop. If not, I'd lean delete. Cbl62 (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I can't find any independent coverage of his death. What about you?—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing in any of the outlets (mlive.com, freep.com, detroitnews.com) where you would expect to see it if he were notable. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is an Estonian article from 1998 about an transfer/contract incident he was involved in from when he played in Finland. He doesn't seem to have played any regular season games in Finland though, the translated text here indicates that he played only two pre-season games for Salon Vilpas and their Korisliiga statistics page for that season does not list him as a player. He played for the Windsor Drive in 2003 according to the article and Eurobasket.com. In 2003, the Drive was a member of the Canadian National Basketball League. It seems that the CNBL never got off and there were only played a few exibitions games before it folded in 2004. If he does pass WP:GNG, it probably won't be through his professional career. — Alvaldi (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep here are several sources already listed for GNG, but I was able to find [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. I'm sure there's more but it's a common name. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
#1 from Colorado Communuity Media reads like a paid advertorial e.g. Any youngsters interested in Team Alexander Athletics can go to the website at www.taathletics.org or call 720-251-5282.. #2 3 & 4 are trivial mentions, and not significant coverage. #5 & 6 are both from Detroit Free Press, which count for one source only: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Does not meet GNG requirement for multiple sources of significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that the one article has been published in multiple publications. And I would dispute that some of the others are trivial. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same article published in even 100 sources would still be one source for GNG purposes. And again, that one reads like paid advertisement i.e. non-independent. I'm dumbfounded how one or two mentions in an article is anything but trivial. People can judge for themselves from the full text of those Newspapers.com links here and here.—Bagumba (talk) 10:07, 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 speedy delete (G5). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsai Branch Post Office[edit]

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

I think this is an absolute GNG fail, unless I missed something in the very few Hindi results on google. Not sure why a post office would be notable anyway. ².O.^Boxing 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability and has no significant sources. Certainly there must be few or even no branch post office that are notable. Some General Post Offices and Central Post Offices are notable and have articles such as the General Post Office, Dublin and Indian ones are Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai but nothing else. Some of the buildings, such as several US post offices, are historic monuments but this is not one. ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete this article. (non-admin closure) ——Serial^# 12:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne de Chantraine[edit]

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

No reliable WP:SOURCES seem to exist for this person. The article is lengthy and full of detail, yes, but the sources are AOL and Angelfire user pages, other broken links, and other unreliable sources. I have googled around and found pages that cite this Wikipedia article as their source. I have also found pages with significant blocks of text that match this page, suggesting potential copyvio, but I cannot trace the original source of those blocks of text and suspect they could be in the public domain. In any case, this does not seem like it belongs on Wikipedia unless someone else can locate some reliable sources here. Paradox society 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some academic sources on this but it is not clear if it was a real or a fictitious character Lainx (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source this was a real person used as the basis for a character in one of Françoise Mallet-Joris's novellas. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as she seems notable per the academic sources linked above (as well as being a character in a videogame) but perhaps strip back to version of 19 September 2017, at which point the article was more similar to the French and Spanish versions before the importation of large amounts of copoyvio word-for-word translation of text from "Livres Mystiques". Excessive detail. PamD 11:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The person may be notable but the article does not follow WP style; instead it seems to be verbatim copies of some texts that are not referenced. It would need to be completely re-written. Lamona (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ukrainian Latin alphabet. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Ukrainian alphabet[edit]

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

WP:Fork from Ukrainian Latin alphabet, not notable enough separately. Zotur (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination, and merge any substantive material. (That's per ATD-R and WP:ATT.) ——Serial^# 12:47, 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! 22:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Malchiodi[edit]

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

I don't believe the subject of this article meets WP:NPROF. She has not held a senior faculty position in any university. She has published many books, but references to her in other books are sparse - as far as I could find, largely in the acknowledgements section. The sources in the article are a mix of a self-created profile, interviews, a podcast, a book she authored, and a passing mention. The strongest case I could make out for her is her regular column in Psychology Today and her book authorship, but neither seems enough to me to demonstrate her notability, especially as this is a BLP and the article seems somewhat promotional. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Leaning keep. Her books are highly cited, making WP:NPROF C1 plausible. WP:NAUTHOR also looks likely. I added one review to the article, here are two more [33] [34]. Her edited volume has also been reviews [35]. I agree that the article needs cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, agree with Mccapra. It's overly promotional, which is fine as it can be edited, but it seems that it is another page that exists mostly to serve as support for subject's own site ("sign up for my trainings"). Not much of a case for PROF, so mostly AUTHOR? Caro7200 (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for either writers or academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has over 6109 citations on google scholar which usually meets WP:NPROF Lainx (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She passes WP:PROF#C1 and it's not so promotional that it can't be cleaned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has a large number of GS citations for WP:NPROF C1, but looking through them, an unusually large number appear to be erroneous or repeated. I searched in Scopus, and still believe in the NPROF case, but it's weaker than first appears. However, the NPROF case is supported by WP:NAUTHOR. She has a large number of books, and while the number of reviews is relatively small, I think it's a weak pass. Worldcat helps support, showing many books held by hundreds or thousands of libraries. Combining the two, I think it's a solid keep case. The article is not in great shape, with puffery, a completely unsourced "Research and achievements" section, etc etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The arguments presented by David Eppstein and Russ Woodroofe are particularly convincing. ——Serial^# 12:53, 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! 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Fire[edit]

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

Unnotable made-for-TV movie with no reviews and not much of a cast: C. Thomas Howell is probably the best known. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can see two items in Proquest that aren't available as full-text but do talk about the movie (at what length, I don't know, but more significant than passing mentions).
- Myers, Randy. TRIAL BY TAPE SECOND ACTS FOR FOUR NEXT BIG THINGS: [CITY Edition]. Buffalo News. Nov 13, 1998.
- IN BRIEF: [CITY Edition 1]. Buffalo News. 11 June 1999: G18.

As these are both in one paper that has no apparently connection to the location, I assume there is some similar level of coverage out there in other papers. But they don't appear to be full-length reviews, so that won't help with film-specific notability. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "not much of a cast" are some familiar faces on scifi/Canadian television. How much weight does our familiarity with the cast have on a film's notability? As it's subjective, I would hope none. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM. The only review I could find was from the Chicago Tribune, which is not an in-depth review, just one paragraph. Other mentions are passing listings of what's on television. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exceptionally obscure made-for-TV B-movie with a handful of only-kinda-notable people in it. Definitely not notable. Dronebogus (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although with some regret; I respect DiamondRemley39's attempts to find more sources, particularly of the academic variety, and request that, should they discover more, I be pinged back to this AfD. ——Serial^# 12:55, 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 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! 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Leone national badminton team[edit]

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

Not a notable badminton team, fails GNG, never won medal in badminton tournament, and only shown the withdrawal result. Stvbastian (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Stvbastian (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G5. Content is identical to deleted version, indication that the creator is another Abbycarroll sock. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dujuan Thomas[edit]

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

Not notable as model. Not notable as a political candidate, running as candidate for mayor of Paducah, Kentucky. Promotional. Deleted back in September 2019. Eostrix (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NCREATIVE, radically fails WP:NPOL. Just churnalism. Very very close to G11. Suggest adding some SALT to the mix, so as to enforce use of AfC. John from Idegon (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not even sure waht the claim here is but he isn't notable and this looks like paid for spam chock full of fake sources. Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an actor or politician. Even if he wins the Paducah mayorship his notability will not be for sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the following

WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." It is sourced several times of Dujuan Thomas receiving the highest honor obtainable, given directly by the Governor, in a neutral, non promotional way. With the commission of Honorable Kentucky Colonal.

WP:POLITICIAN "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Several National News sources have covered Dujuan Thomas, as well as national radio broadcast on his political candidacy.

WP:CREATIVE For his several sourced links discussing his roles in entertainment and film.

WP:ENT "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Again several of the cited sources have discussed Dujuan Thomas having a large social following and his roles in entertainment on a national level

WP:SOLDIER Again several sources have noted Dujuan being a veteran and receiving the highest honor of Kentucky Colonel.

I urge my fellow editors to follow policy and not put personal bias in front of the greater good of Wikipedia.

When not to delete

Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.

Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with. Do research about the article before voting. The more you know, the better your decision will be, and the more useful your contribution will be to the debate. Assume good faith. Remember that other editors may disagree with you, but may still be trying to help the encyclopedia.

I ask you to help improve the article if you find it in error, but from the guidelines of WIKI it passes. Ty012345 (talk) 07:12, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Bus Body Builders[edit]

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

Local bus cabin manufacturer. Does not meet notability guidelines for companies Eostrix (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify There are sources which may be sufficient to demonstrate notability, but the article creator hasn't bothered to put them in. Mccapra (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can point to potential references that the creator didn't bother to put in, there's not a lot of point to that assumption at this time. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Sweeney (actress)[edit]

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

Sources are nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, there's lots of roles in the filmography but most (all?) don't look significant so I don't think WP:NACTOR is met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails most basic requirements of NACTOR or ANYBIO. ——Serial^# 13:06, 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 redirect to Kalki Bhagwan#O&O Academy. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oneness University[edit]

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

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

A non-notable entity. References are primary and no reliable secondary sources to establish the notability. It was Deleted earlier as well. Nothing changed much then. - The9Man ^(Talk) 05:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kalki Bhagwan, where all of this information is already contained. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Kalki_Bhagwan#O&O_Academy: I agree with Mccapra that there is sufficient coverage of this proposition, under both its earlier and current names, at Kalki_Bhagwan#O&O_Academy. While some local coverage of meditation sessions organised by them can be found, I am not seeing evidence of specific WP:NORG notability being attained. AllyD (talk) 08:20, 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 speedy keep. Malformed nomination as two identical AfDs were created. Also it is less than a month since the last AfD which ended in keep, when it is accepted practice to wait at least six months before renominating. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

this article has been created and mostly edited by a user who cites faulty/unreliable/nonexistant sources. this user has also made an article for himself (seemingly). the subject of this article is also not notable enough. the article is very positive and promotional. it also seems like it was made by a paid editor. i recommend deletion. Clone commando sev (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last AfD was just closed on 26 April, not even a month ago. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 19:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was already agreed to be kept, per previous AfD. It only needs some clean-up. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:G5: creation by sock in violation of block, with no significant edits by others. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NKN (software)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

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

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

Lowkey press release for yet another non-notable cryptocurrency software. All sources presented are either press releases or comes from unreliable, non-compelling crypto blogs and websites. WP:BEFORE turns up the same stuff. Virtually no coverage in any form of media outside of the aforementioned crypto blogs and audience specific sites. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the main merit of this entry is that NKN's consensus algorithm represent a new school of technical adavance that are based on Cellular Automata in order to solve the scalability of many nodes instead of transaction per second. Other notable projects in this space is IOTA and Coordicide, and Near Protocol. And this technical challenge has been well spelled out in Dr. Stephen Wolfram's analysis. "Stephen Wolfram (Creator of NKS) Tries to Understand NKN" [36].

In addition, coindesk is the most reputable news outlet in blockchain and cryptocurrency. And their report on NKN and iQIYI in video platform contract is a valid reference. Sebastian Sinclair (2020-04-14). "Baidu-Owned Video Streaming Giant iQiyi Taps Public Blockchain for Performance Boost". [37]. Zbruceli(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC) — Zbruceli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I'd like to note that the GSMA case-study is neither a non-reputable source, nor a press release. It's a case-study - going into fine detail on how the NKN Software worked with iQIYI (China's largest video streaming platform) and even out-performed existing content delivery offerings. GSMA are a hugely creditable association of hundreds of telecom and mobile providers globally, and share their findings and news with these members. GSMA - Future Networks: NKN Case Study [38] OMTom (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— OMTom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Blockchain vaporware that doesn't even make sense, created by a sockpuppet of another user who was blocked for spamming the same thing. ST47 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ST47, the two above spa accounts will likely need to be checked too.
Comment I respect wiki mods spending their personal time to maintain the quality of wikipedia. NKN is lesser known, which is clear, but it does not warrant a label of "vaporware". And the developers have toiled over the last two years creating the following (just facts, no PR): over 1 million line of new source code on the GitHub NKN core repository [39]. Over 14,000 community nodes running in 42 countries and regions NKN explorer and network map [40]. And in addition, with the GSMA reference and coindesk reference, the network is used by legitimate multi-national businesses. Zbruceli (talk)

Comment Vapourware is a very poor description for NKN. They're one of the few telecom startup companies which has a simple but field-disruptive idea, multiple working products (free to test in browser), and multiple signed clients. They have given talks at Tsinghua University <ref>NKN Technical Seminar in Tsinghua University [41] (the top ranked University in China), Global Digital Economy Summit in China, and also at Blockchain Connect Conference in San Francisco, to name a few. If there's anything unclear, or if you believe the Wiki article needs to be brought down to a simpler reading level to be valid, I'd be more than happy to contribute and make it so. If there's anything in particular you'd like to see in response here, to show how far NKN is from "yet another non-notable cryptocurrency software", I'd love to help there too. OMTom (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OMTom, Please do not vote multiple times. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet notability requirements in terms of reliable secondary sources independent of subject. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment only keep votes are from a) a newly created account whose sole purpose has been to make a non-policy based keep vote on this afd and b) an spa account whose only edits outside of the afd have been to the article in question (this is not neccesarily a bad thing). I wouldn't at all be suprised if the former account is a sockpuppet. Tknifton (talk) 11:53, 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. No consensus has emerged to delete the article. (non-admin closure) ——Serial^# 13:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flemingsberg Church[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY; it exists but doesn't merit an article. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article needs improvements and expansions. The merit argument could be applied to a person, but hardly a construction. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say it passes WP:GNG but give no indication as to how it does so to counter the contention that it doesn't. As for improvements and expansions, assuming you meant that they would help demonstrate passage of WP:GNG, see Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search for "flemingsberg church" turns up no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Even in Swedish, searching through all results for "flemingbergs kyrka", I came across only two sources[42][43] that could be seen as contributing to WP:GNG. That, in my opinion, doesn't suffice. Largoplazo (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the AfD is set to end today so I want to get my "keep" !vote in now even though I have not finished looking for sources. Normally I'd wait until I was done with that in order to be certain. The reasons I very strongly believe that there are good sources to be found are a) there is a doctoral dissertation from 2009 about the church (the congregation and theology rather than the church building, but I still think it is relevant), b) searches in the Swedish newspaper archive database give a lot of hits, where many are only listings of Sunday services but some are not (and I'm sifting through those) ; for instance, the second source provided by Largoplazo above concerns a minor controversy where an extreme-right political movement in Sweden criticised the church for allowing Muslims to pray there, and that has been covered in other newspapers as well, and c) "Flemingsbergs kyrka" is only one relevant search string – "Flemingsbergskyrkan" and "kyrkan i Flemingsberg" are other strings. I have ordered a copy of the dissertation through the library, but for coronavirus reasons it may take a few days before I am able to collect it. --bonadea contributions talk 10:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to give Bonadea time to examine the sources more carefully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per bonadea – I would be very surprised if there weren't proper sources for this. In the meanwhile, I've added basic info about the architect and another ref. bonadea, while you're at it, my search for sources found an article in Dagens Nyheter from 1982 about a book then about to be published, Huddinges kyrkor och präster, ed. Bernt Mattsson. It could prove useful, too, I imagine, if you haven't yet come across it as you're sifting through articles. /Julle (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is listed as notable on sv:Flemingsbergs_kyrka#Källor with other structures in the community. If this one in the US we might have it on the National Register. So it is notable due to it having a recognized status. Along with the sources mentioned by the other users above it also meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you state that something must be 50 years old to be on the National Register, so without any basis for historical significance whatsoever this 44-year-old building is something that might be on it? And then somehow it "is notable" because it "has" a recognized status? WTF? What status does it have??? And no notability on the English Wikipedia is NOT based on an article existing in another, since their standards are not the same as ours and that one lacks any significant independent coverage! Reywas92^Talk 00:59, 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. No prejudice against redirection to a suitable mention. czar 02:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Daggett[edit]

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

Almost completely unsourced and has very minimal notability (does not meet the requirements of WP:N or WP:RS). I recommend consolidating this character into List of DC animated universe characters and include a concise blurb of his role in the backstories of the more notable characters such as Clayface in their articles. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rhino131 (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2005-09 Germs (Batman) ✓ MERGE and KEEP as redirect

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of minor DC Comics characters or redirect to List of DC animated universe characters. Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a stand-alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect due to falling NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable third party sources, per WP:N. Not opposed to a redirect if there's a suitable target. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:59, 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. czar 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1001malam.com[edit]

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

Not notable per Wikipedia standards; article only gets a couple pageviews per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See WP:PAGEVIEW and WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided are an interview, a listing, the company's own website and a blog. Unless anyone has anything better? Mccapra (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 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! 22:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shiblee Group of Colleges[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The said college is a known institute in region. Though article needs improvement but it doesn't need to be deleted. (uSaamo 08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by USaamo (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A dearth of reliable sources = NCORP failure. ——Serial^# 13:12, 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. czar 02:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Webkinz stuffed animals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

not really notable, overly large list and poorly sourced. websites such as webkinzinsider.com already aggregate these lists (on a much more relevant website too), keeping them up to date and Wikipedia probably isn't the best place for a list like this Ed6767 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In addition, the previous XfD request for this page, all the way back in 2012 resulted in no consensus, however, Imo no real improvement has been seen in the near 8 years since Ed6767 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to Deletion Could be merged with the generic Webkinz Wikipedia page, but that would extend the parent page exorbitantly and it makes more sense to keep this as a separate page crazyforcats19 11:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 68.57.234.58 (talk • contribs)
DELETE This list does seem rather pointless. Anyone looking for the information would find a superior up to date list with pictures on the official website. http://www.webkinzinsider.com/wiki/Full_List_Of_All_Webkinz_Pets Dream Focus 05:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP While other sources may exist containing of this information, there is nothing wrong with it existing on this page. The specific animals from Webkinz are a significant element of the Webkinz franchise and provide people who prefer to use a common outlet like Wikipedia rather than a specific one dedicated to Webkinz with a way to examine the variety of Webkinz animals the genre is comprised of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SirGabeAlot (talk • contribs) — SirGabeAlot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KEEP This list appears before webkinzinsider when searched on Google and is the premier outlet for the "layperson" unaccustomed to webkinzinsider. Webkinzinsider is well-known for those that have been members of Webkinz for many years but Wikipedia is the better-known accountable source for the average customer, parent, or for those who are simply curious about Webkinz 11:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This list has been around for many years - before updating, it was 10 years out of date, and it was not removed when out of date. With the updates it is much more accurate. Improvements include addition of all released Webkinz within past 10 years. I have also fixed some mistakes that I noted and have added more sources. crazyforcats19 11:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 68.57.234.58 (talk • contribs)

Why are you trying to delete this page after it's been made fully functional (which it wasn't before, but it is now), comprehensive, and fully up-to-date? If you were going to delete the page, why couldn't you have done it during any of the 10 years in which the page lay dormant and was outdated? Now it's NOT outdated and there is no reason for it to be deleted. crazyforcats19 0:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 68.57.234.58 (talk • contribs)

Delete for the same reasons outlined under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Beanie Babies. Ajf773 (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773. The WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE arguments used in the AFD they mentioned would certainly also apply here. Rorshacma (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can find all the information at https://webkinz.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page and edit there if you are a fan of these things. There are 3,269 articles already. So don't get upset when Wikipedia deletes something because you can easily find it elsewhere, and even better, with pictures. Dream Focus 17:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a catalogue, but this page is a list of products with no outside commentary or further evidence of notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “Wikipedia is the top Google hit” is not a good reason to keep a non-notable, unencyclopedic checklist article that is already covered more appropriately elsewhere. Dronebogus (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a poorly sourced list of trivia. Per WP:NOTCATALOG I am not sure that this has encyclopedic value. epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 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. czar 02:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridaex Technology[edit]

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

A quick search omitting "Technology" yields a handful of results, none significant enough to sustain a notability claim. Simply non-notable per the GNG or WP:CORP. PK650 (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive that this page is notable and has Independant reliable source to support the same, this is the First India made televison,this company got India 5000 Startup Award in 2019 for its quality. I am providing the reliable source links for the teams perusal

https://forbesnews.co.uk/ridaex-a-little-known-brand-to-winner-of-india-5000-startup-award-2019-in-just-3-5-years/ https://www.india5000.com/winners/2019/india-500-startup-awards-2019/ridaex-information-systems-and-services-opc-pvt-ltd https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/260612841/grabon-cricket-fantasy-win-smart-tvs-bluetooth-headsets-and-more https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/04/01/2009837/0/en/2020-Televisions-Smart-Traditional-Market-Study-Presents-Industry-Size-Growth-for-2015-2030.html https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/electronics/ridaex-tech-acquired-by-their-branding-partner-gotmatter-pvt-ltd/articleshow/62839094.cms?from=mdr Kindly let me know if I have to provide any more details.Thanks, Glittershield (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "India 5000 Startup Award" is not a significant award. The rest of the sources provided above are either press releases or trivial. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite what the bot thinks, this does not qualify for a SOFTDELETE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The available coverage is a mixture of strangely-worded promotional coverage of their start-up award, which is not inherently notable, and announcement-based coverage of the firm's acquisition, which falls under Trivial Coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. There is no article on GotMatter Pvt Ltd, which might have been a redirect target option. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

highly promotional article created by the subject itself as evident from the history, and significant edited by staff and interns as evident I've done some simple searching. WP:TNT, WP:PROMO. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NORG. The numerous "media coverage" link drops all amounted to trivial coverage like "says Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.", thus failing WP:SIGCOV. Source analysis in article's talk page. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Loehwing, Melanie (2018). Homeless Advocacy and the Rhetorical Construction of the Civic Home. University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press. ISBN 978-0-271-08215-8. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
Soohoo, Cynthia; Albisa, Catherine; Davis, Martha F., eds. (2007). Bringing Human Rights Home. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. pp. 41, 161. ISBN 978-0-275-98821-0. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
Doak, Melissa J. (2006). Homeless in America: How Could It Happen Here?. Detroit: Gale. pp. 6, 8. ISBN 1-4144-0477-8. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
Hurley, Jennifer A. (2002). The Homeless: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. p. 174. ISBN 0-7377-0749-6. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

Sources with quotes

Loehwing, Melanie (2018). Homeless Advocacy and the Rhetorical Construction of the Civic Home. University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press. ISBN 978-0-271-08215-8. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The book notes:
In the advocate community, the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), and the National Law Center on Homeless and Povertly (NLCHP) stand out as three of the most important loci of advocate activity and networking. The campaigns and initiatives of organizations such as the NAEH, NCH, and NLCHP represent traditional solutions-focused social advocacy.
...
I document this conventional view by analyzing the advocacy efforts of the three major national organizations addressing homelessness today: the National Coalition for the Homeless, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.
The book notes:
The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP), the third of the major U.S. homeless advocacy organizations, follows the NAEH's lead in focusing on the production of expert knowledge rather than participating in the day-to-day provision of resources to individuals experiencing homelessness. Founded in 1989 by Maria Foscarinis, a lawyer devoted to seeking justice through the courts for people experiencing homelessness, the NLCHP aims "to prevent and end homelessness by serving as the legal arm of the nationwide movement to end homelessness." Like the NCH and the NAEH, the NLCHP pursues policy initiatives that seek greater allocation of funds and resources to homeless service providers, as well as public education campaigns aspiring to correct misconceptions about homelessness and publicize little-known truths about its causes and consequences. NLCHP campaigns advocate on behalf of the homeless through legal channels largely by working to reclaim the rights stripped from those who lack private shelter: their programs include initiatives to increase federal resources, ensure homeless children's access to public education, and protect the homeless of all ages from hate crimes, wrongful evictions, and civil-rights violations.
The book notes:
What we see in this advocacy initiative is a two-pronged critique of homeless criminalization: the NLCHP opposes antihomeless legislation on the grounds that it violates fundamental rights that should protect all citizens but that are routinely denied to the homeless. But in addition to rights-based advoacy, the NLCHP makes a pragmatic argument as well, contending that antihomeless legislation simply does not work in practice. ...
The NLCHP has remained at the forefront of the fight for homeless rights, describing its approach in terms of a dual focus on "ending the criminalization of homelessness and reducing the burden of ID barriers on homeless people." ... Approaching homeless advocacy from a human-rights perspective drives the NLCHP's emphasis on contesting unjust legislation and petitioning for new initiatives to recognize and protect the civil rights of those experiencing homelessness.
In pursuit of these dual goals, the NLCHP compiles publicly available research reports that document the changing landscape of homeless criminalization in the United States. One such report [discussion of the report]
Soohoo, Cynthia; Albisa, Catherine; Davis, Martha F., eds. (2007). Bringing Human Rights Home. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. pp. 41, 161. ISBN 978-0-275-98821-0. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The book notes on page 41:
The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP), under the leadership of Maria Foscarini, was one of the frontrunners among national organizations to interest itself and develop a human rights approach. NLCHP has built a human rights-to-housing caucus that it brought wholesale to the U.S. Human Rights Network. The caucus has held conferences, worked with the UN Special Rapporteur on Housing to bring attention to gentrification and displacement in Chicago, and organized trainings for hundreds of housing advocates. It's been more difficult for NLCHP to identify litigation opportunities to use human rights, which is telling given that it is primarily a litigation organization. Translating the enthusiasm for economic and social rights from the activist community to the courts may be a very long journey for groups like NLCHP. It seems an equally long journey to translate this enthusiasm to the beltway, and few groups with a legislative focus have taken up the approach. Even NLCHP, when writing policy briefs targeting a beltway audience, makes little or no mentions of human rights.
The book notes on page 161:
NLCHP is currently working with the government to implement this Observation. There are difficulties in trying to bridge the gap between the Department of State, which traditionally handles the treaty-reporting process with the treaty bodies, and the domestic agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Justice, which would have a role in implementing the Observations. The chief obstacle is that most of the domestic agencies are not aware of their role in implementation. NLCHP together with others held a joint meeting with the State Department and other agencies in January 2007 to start bridging this divide, and a follow up meeting with the Justice Department two months later. There is still a great deal of education to do, but groups are hopeful that their efforts will begin to build on one another. Additionally, NLCHP is working with congressional members to include language in future housing legilation that would endorse Congress's continuing role in implementing the rights under the treaties. NLCHP, COHRE, and hundreds of other organizations will be participating in a similar shadow reporting process under the CERD treaty in 2007 and 2008, adding yet another layer of accountability on the government for its treaty obligations.
Doak, Melissa J. (2006). Homeless in America: How Could It Happen Here?. Detroit: Gale. pp. 6, 8. ISBN 1-4144-0477-8. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The book notes:
Census Accused of Unconstitutionality. The National Law Center on Homeless and Poverty alleged that the methodology of the S-Night count was unconstitutional. In 1992 the Law Center, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the cities of Baltimore and San Francisco, fifteen local homeless organizations, and seven homeless people (the plaintiffs) filed suit in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. They charged the Census Bureau with excluding segments of the homeless population in the 1990 population count by not counting those in hidden areas and by not allocating adequatee funds for S-Night.
...
The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty states that its mission is "to alleviate, ameliorate and end homelessness by serving as the legal arm of the nationwide movement to end homelessness," and works to protect the rights of homeless people and to end homelessness in America. It uses three main strategies to achieve this goal: impact litigation, policy advoacy, and public education. The Law Center conducts research studies and distributes the results by publishing fact sheets and a monthly newsletter.
Hurley, Jennifer A. (2002). The Homeless: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. p. 174. ISBN 0-7377-0749-6. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
The book notes:
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty

The mission of the The Homeless: Opposing Viewpoints is to protect the rights of homeless people and to implement solution to end homeless in America. To achieve its mission, the center pursues three main strategies: impact litigation, policy advoacy, and public education. It regards homelessness as an effect of the shortage of affordable housing, insufficient wages, and inadequate social services. The center publishes the monthly newsletter In Just Times.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these coverage are insufficient for notability purposes. When you go digging for books that specialize on the topic, you can find things in fair depth about obscure objects and companies that specialize in that discipline. Those things are great for facts and figures; but as far as establishing that an organization is GENRALLY notable, I don't believe that it goes far. A paragraph or two on an organization that operates in the homeless industry in books that specializes in homelessness and social science is not particularly notable. Source #4 by Hurley only has the organization in a resource directory in a directory with other organizations. That's a passing mention. One of the other books giving a paragraph or two of space about NLCHP launching a lawsuit that ended up getting dismissed doesn't go far in building notability. Those sources maybe great to augment things once general interest once organizational general notability has been established in mainstream general interest source with significant WP:AUD. This means a book that focuses on homeless advocacy is of limited interest, because it's important only within the "homeless advocacy" circle. Graywalls (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty participants: Boleyn (talk · contribs) and Neil P. Quinn (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass WP:NONPROFIT based on sources presented by Cunard. Further, mentions in RS's, even if though are passing quotations such as this demonstrate that the center is considered a major organization in its field and when combined with the more in-depth coverage above, is enough to substantiate notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment "that policy you cited says Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." but nothing suggesting that routine annoucements and mentions in passing can be stacked up. Graywalls (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Allow me to briefly clarify my comment: I'm not suggesting that "routine annoucements and mentions in passing can be stacked up". The sources Cunard presented are, in my opinion, enough to substantiate "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization". The fact that they are routinely quoted in newspapers goes to substantiate the former criteria of NONPROFIT, that "The scope of their activities is national or international in scale" by demonstrating that they do, in fact have national presence. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per analysis of previous users. Various sources have been moved to the talk page, too. Dwaro (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard's analysis of the sourcing is rather convincing. ——Serial^# 13:15, 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

César Vinuesa[edit]

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

The player fails WP:GNG while also just scraping by on WP:NFOOTY which wouldn't be enough to pass for GNG too. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 18 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, which is far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails both SIGCOV and FOOTYN. Drat8sub (talk) 00:59, 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! 22:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Norris[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC notability requirements. I thought the comment someone left on the talk page sums it up pretty well: Who is this person? Why do we care? If you hunt through this 900-word article you can find exactly one thing that this "inventor" claims to have invented, which appears to be a typical infomercial-hyped speaker system that may or may not actually be available for purchase anywhere. Is this person really important enough that we need a list of all the alleged corporations he has founded (many of which seem to have no web presence or products - anyone can register a corporation with their state government for around $100, it doesn't mean anything) and a bunch of people who are listed solely for being his "associates?" This really reeks of someone with nothing to promote self-promoting. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very non-notable businessman. We might avoid hitting 1 million articles on living people this year if we can removed enough of these vapid articles promoting non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article dates to 8 August 2005. That means it has been around almost 15 years. It was also created not by a registered user but by an IP address. Of course I am one of the people who firmly believes Wikipedia would be better if we made people use their real names, as you can see I do. Some might say "yes, but how many people go by their full names?" My grandson calls me by my full name 2-3 times a day, and as those who once tried to villify me for category edits that they did not like (and in the process falsely accused me of creating a category I did not create, only expanded months after someone else made it) I use the same name on my facebook account, and I generally make public comments on other websites under this name. As I have said many, many times I think we should go to A-require the use of real names on wikipedia accounts, b-require more deep verification of existence, c-ban anyone under age 18 from creating an article on Wikipedia, d-make all new article creations go through the article for creation process. OK, I actually have never spelled out all 4 criteria at once before, but horredous vapid articles like this lasting 15 years makes me really think we need these reforms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL, man that was a manifesto! :) ——Serial^# 13:18, 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! 22:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brinkenstjärna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any coverage. KidAd (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable talent manager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had never heard of him before, but a search in a Swedish media archive turns up a wealth of articles in major newspapers spanning from the 80s until today. They cover his early career as a DJ and musician, his later shift to becoming a talent manager, his legal troubles – for various reasons – and so on. This is really not my area, but I started rewriting the article, adding more sources. /Julle (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs expansion and improvements. But is within WP:GNG. Per sources. Per notable work. BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 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 keep. No consensus to delete this article will emerge. (non-admin closure) ——Serial^# 13:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable music guy. Cannot meet GNG or MUSICBIO. He is not even run of the mill. Ignore the first AFD notice on the side it is a totally unrelated dinosaur from 2004, no idea how it was linked to this debate. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely non-notable musician. It sources unreliable websites including advertisements like these sources, articles that don't pass WP:NOTRSMUSIC like this source, and even worse, it sources the musicians own songs. Kori (@) 19:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject passes WP:GNG and a few criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. He has received several coverage (mostly primary) in reliable sources and has released a project that has been critically-reviewed. Here are some coverage I found: Vice.com, The Face, The Outline, Fact Magazine, Elevator Magazine, Highsnobeity and The Fader. His Leap of Faith project has been critically reviewed by Native Magazine, Pulse Nigeria (owned by Ringier), Oris Aigbokhaevbolo and OkayAfrica. Reliable sources that give background info about the project include One Tribe Magazine. His second EP, titled Colours, was also critically reviewed by Native magazine, RNGLOR and Filter Free Nigeria. Background info about the EP can also be seen here and here. I'm not sure if the people voting delete actually did a complete Google search. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Elevator Magazine appears to be a vanity site that charges a submission fee. Largoplazo (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep — Per rationale provided by Versace1608. @Koridas & MistyGraceWhite. I believe you both must have come across WP:BASIC & per that notability guideline, what Versace said above means subject of the article should merit a stand alone article. I don’t necessarily disagree with you @Koridas some of the sources are shaky & some (the Q & A’s) are definitely not independent of him but asides those we have other multiple sufficient sources that are also reliable sources that show that per WP:BASIC subject of article is indeed notable. Celestina007 (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the following sources: Vice, The Native Mag, Pulse.ng and Music in Africa. Thanks to Largoplazo for pointing out that Elevator Magazine does not appear to be a reliable source. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ——Serial^# 13:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centerville, Alpine County, California[edit]

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

this is one of the biggest messes I have come across in reviewing these GNIS-dump artcles, and about the only thing I am sure of is that this article needs to be deleted no matter what else gets done. To begin with, the name of the place is "Centerville Flat", not Centerville. Not being able to get to the map that GNIS cites, the phrase "State Historical Landmark" suggests that there is some sort of marker on the side of the road. And indeed there is, and since it's in California the Google Car got there, and you can read the classic white-on-brown wooden park service sign, and it says, "OLD MINING TOWN SITE OF CENTERVILLE FLAT". Only this is not the end of the story, because this page says that it is the site of an old sawmill town, except that this references says that, yes, it was a sawmill, but places it on the opposite side of Markleeville. What it is now is a campground. Maybe an article needs to be written on Centerville Flat, but the present article is absolutely wrong. Searching is extremely hindered by the existence of no less than nine other Centervilles in California, but as soon as I do anything to limit searching to this county, I get a very few hits, and the only informative ones all say Centerville Flat and not Centerville, including the topo maps. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Regarding the location, I interpret "above Markleeville" to mean "upstream of Markleeville" which would be consistent with its location on the North-flowing East Fork of the Carson River. If there was significant coverage, a move to Centerville Flat would be appropriate, but I'm just not finding anything to support a standalone article for this run-of-the-mill (heh) timber/mining camp. –dlthewave ☎ 13:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Striking for now since new sources clarify that it was a town/village. Will reassess notability after expansion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and move to Centerville Flat, California~~.After further digging, most sources I'm seeing refer to the town simply as Centerville. CJK09 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC) I don't see a need to use TNT here. Distinguishing between actual towns and run-of-the-mill work camps can be difficult in 1800s California, but this one seems to be consistently referred to as a town. Removing the GNIS crap doesn't require deletion, and I think there's enough to work with to write a stub of two or three paragraphs. I also expect I'll find more stuff once I get a chance to look through some old newspaper archives I have access to, and the webarchive history of a couple historical society websites that are now offline. CJK09 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Deletion: in this case now would be "move and do not leave a redirect." My thought was that someone would write a new article at the correct name but in any case there is no Centerville in Alpine County. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CJK09: I'm curious why you call this a "run-of-the-mill work camp" when four of the sources cited specifically state that Centerville was not a mining or timber camp, and nothing in the article states that it was? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I was saying the opposite - that it's not a run-of-the-mill work camp. CJK09 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CJK09: My apology, it was User:Dlthewave that said that. I'm curious why you would change the name to "Centerville Flat", when all of the sources cited call this historic town--with its tavern, stores, homes, streets, and hotel--"Centerville"? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my vote since I was mistaken in my assessment. "Centerville" and "Centerville Flat" both appear in the new sources that have been added; let's wait til the editing has settled down to see which one is more prevalent. –dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple reliable sources cited in the article list this as a populated place, with roads, houses, stores, a tavern, and a hotel. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good enough to talk about references to "Centerville". As I noted above, there are nine other sites called "Centerville" in California, so any reference has to be shown to be referring to this spot and not one of the others. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: I have carefully scrutinized each reference, and each is about the location in Alpine County. Please see this source which states: "Centerville, Alpine County, small village with stores and a tavern..." Moreover, all of the sources corroborate each other, and some either give directions to this location, or include a map to this exact location. If you have reason to suggest this in incorrect, please state your reasons. If you're just saying stuff because other editors have found multiple reliable sources to support the existence of a place "the only thing I am sure of is that this article needs to be deleted no matter what else gets done", then I'm not sure how to respond. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple reliable sources cited.Djflem (talk) 18:19, 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 keep. There is a consensus to keep the content but not entirely clear what should be done with it Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second American Revolution[edit]

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

This is a non-notable topic that at best deserves a sentence in the main American Revolution article. Previous PROD attempt was removed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It doesn't really seem connected to the actual American Revolution outside of name, so I don't think it would belong on that article. userdude 05:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of the above comments. As I said on the WikiProject United States talk page], the "Second American Revolution" article says: "Rhetorical or hyperbolic references to a Second American Revolution have been made on a number of occasions throughout the history of the United States." That's thin gruel to justify an entire article, and actually misleading, as the title gives the impression at first sight that two American Revolutionary Wars were fought. Carlstak (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the content ought to be included somewhere, and it doesn't fit in on American Revolution. If the current title is misleading, would moving the page work? Maybe to something like, List of conflicts referred to as Second American Revolution or List of events referred to as Second American Revolution?— Preceding unsigned comment added by UserDude (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Second American Revolution (historiography), as proposed by CJK09. userdude 00:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My sense is that this article is intended to serve as a dabconcept for the phrase, which is linked in a large number of articles because it is a recurrent theme in speculative fiction. Uses in fiction were fairly extensively cataloged in a previous version of the article (albeit poorly sourced), which was summarily removed last year. BD2412 T 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is not a recognised term. However the fact that several historians have used it in different contexts suggests that something is needed, but I wonder if this is not better dealt with in a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be served by a disambiguation page. Coming from the Wiktionary side I can tell you that this would be considered as a non-idiomatic sum-of-parts and rejected for inclusion in the dictionary. BD2412 T 17:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Second American Revolution (historiography). This is about a concept in historiography, not a well-defined historical event, and the title should reflect that to avoid misleading people. The article should not be deleted - it's not a neologism, passes GNG with flying colors, and serves a useful purpose in discussing the various events that historians have labeled as a second American revolution. CJK09 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. We're here to assess the inherent or otherwise notability of the topic. So, firstly, "keep" because it's a common phrase used by numerous relable sources and notable authors. So it is a thing and it's a notable thing. However, I agree with the point, above, that at its curremt location thetitle imples that theer were, literally, two American revolutions, when of course there were not. That does a disservice to the WP:READER. The fact that the phrase is used in different historiographies suggest that it should be under a title that reflects this; provisionally, I'd agree with something like CJK09's Second American Revolution (historiographical term). But, either way, the page title is strictly a discussion for the talk page: ths page is for establishing notability, and has fulfilled its purpose. ——Serial^# 13:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion as to keep or delete, but I disagree with moving the article to "Second American Revolution (something)". We use parentheticals for disambiguation, but that is not needed here. Our article titles are not implied or understood to be statements of fact by Wikipedia. For example, A Very Stable Genius is quite possibly not an accurate characterization of the book's subject, the German Democratic Republic was not known for being a democracy, etc. Sandstein 16:42, 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 redirect to Túrin Turambar. Seems logical to redirect to where her story is discussed Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niënor Níniel[edit]

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

Can only find one reliable secondary source discussing this character in depth, the source is [44]. We need more than this. If additional sources can be provided to demonstrate the level of coverage needed for a WP:GNG pass, I will withdraw this nomination. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did find more sources: [45], [46], her image used in a journal: [47], and here I think more analytical than the others: [48]. There's more to find at here Google Scholar, if necessary. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- First source is a plot summary, I can only see the abstract of the second source, but I'll assume good faith on it, the image doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, but the final source does devote a page of good analysis to her. Getting close to enough for GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - About 3, sorry, I cannot actually see more here either. But I found several more which may not have very lengthy passages on Nienor, but provide facts outside plot summary: A Companion to J.R.R. Tolkien has something on the development history of the character. The Power and Purpose of Names and Naming in Tolkien’s The Children of Húrin also talks about this, and in addition about how the two names define/change the character. A Kinship of Grief - Oedipus in the Theban Plays and Middle Earth only has a little bit about Nienor, but compares her with both Jokaste and Oedipus. Daranios (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure if the latter two are reliable: they look like school papers. I'm hoping there will be more participation in this AfD, so others can have a look at this, too. I'll place a notice at the Middle-earth Wikiproject, maybe somebody there'll have some print sources, too. Hog Farm (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tolkien Encyclopedia does not have a dedicated entry on this person (the name appears only in passing in few entries, with no in-depth discussion of him). I can access [49] and I find coverage there to be a passing mention too. In both cases the mentions are plot-summary related, no analysis. [50] The coverage in [51] seem to be limited to a single sentence, although the fact that the absract/keywords list three spelling variants of the subject's name don't help (I did CTRL+F for all 3 and found a single sentence in body, so I don't know what here is supposed to be "more analytical" than in the other sources; well, ok, "In the stories of M orwen, the long-suffering wife of H urin, of their daughter Niennor, and of their kinsw om an Aerin, Tolkien departs from the epic pattern of silence about w om en's lives", the sentence is analytical, but it hardly in=depth when it comes to this character. [52] is a review of a book A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien, I don't see the subject discussed in the review, if it is mentioned in the book itself please tell us what chapter/etc (but incidentally the book is notable and I'll stub it shortly). The coverage in [53] (EXPLORATIONS: The Journal of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities for the State of North Carolina, seems to be peer reviewed, but the author is by default an undergrad, and I wonder who does the peer review - faculty, or grad students?) seems to be extensive, but limited to a plot summary, I see very little analysis of the character's significance. And re [54] (Quest multidisciplinary journal of humanities & social sciences) may be borderline reliable as a minor but not predatory (I think) journal, but the discussion there is very short again, literary half a sentence saying that the character is "derived from elements in Sigurd the Volsung, Oedipus, and the Finnish Kullervo". I think this last source is the most analytical one, coupled with the other quoted, and we seriously have to ask ourselves - is half the sentence of analysis in two sources sufficient for an encyclopedic article? Not a single source we found is in-depth when it comes to analysis, all we get is plot and two half-sentences. I think the two analytical sources that mention her in passing may be good to be quoted in some larger article, even a list of characters, where in addition to the plot summary we can include two sentences of analysis based on those, but I don't think she merits a dedicated stand-alone article based on those two half-sentences. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Tolkien Sidelined: Constructing the Non-Combatant in The Children of Hurin: The quoted sentence on p. 95 is only the first, not the only treatment of Niënor Níniel, here mostly spelled Niënnor. It continues on p. 98, and get's into more analysis in to following pages. 99: "Niennor is another study of the lives of women during wartime. ..." "To understand Tolkien's grounding for his handling of Morwen, Aerin, and Niennor, and for that matter his insightful portrayal of Eowyn's frustration at her situation, a turn to some of the shaping events in his life, however little he may have approved of such approaches, proves instructive." Then the author goes on until p. 104 about the women in Tolkien's life during wartime, not mentioning the fictional characters by name again, but the author did relate to them in the quoted introductory sentence. Then he talks about Tolkien's own fate and relates it to these female figures, finishing in p. 108: "One hears echoes [...] of Niennor's desperate wish either to keep the man she loves from danger or to die with him [in a quoted letter by Tolkien]. Tolkien shows that these women have no more, and no less, wisdom, virtue, or insight than any other human being in difficult circumstances, but he also cannot exempt them from the suffering of war." And the article goes on another paragraph about Tolkiens view of these women collectively. So even if the Niennor's name appears not at every turn, there's still a lot of analysis (which is not in the Wikipedia article yet). Daranios (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien (thanks for creating that article): I was referring to the book itself, sorry for causing confusion. Nienor Niniel gets a short mention in "The Lays of Beleriand (1985)" p. 150 with a remark about the name's aliteration. The important chapter is "Tolkien’s “Great Saga”: A “Long Defeat” That May or May Not Include a “Final Victory”", p. 154-159. That chapter calls the story of Hurin and Nienor central and "Tolkien's "Great Saga". It further gives details about the development of the text over time, including a very different ending and that endings implications. So that's all not plot-summary. Please also note that Nienor is sometimes not called by name but together with Turin as "children of Hurin". That phrase appears many times in the book, but usually only as the title of the poem. Lastly, on p. 476 the book cites another source that Turin and Niniel are one of only four couples "whose love gets much space" in Tolkien's work. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not bad, but I'd like to see the reception/analysis section actually expanded to see if there is really more to be said than 2-3 sentences. I do wonder if Chap's idea below isn't a better solution. Or perhaps both fictional character's bios could be merged into the article about the story of the children of Hurin? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to see that expansion, but that won't be done by me, as I still have, at my pace, decades worth of homework from other deletion discussions. But I think according to the guidelines of Wikipedia like WP:ARTN and WP:PRESERVE an article should not first be deleted, than improved, but the other way round. And if noone is ready to put in the time for improvement, well, that's that, the imperfect article should remain. That said, having the material here merged and redirected into a Children of Húrin article seems preferable to deletion. Though Turin is clearly the protagonist, it would befit us to not underestimate the importance of female characters. Daranios (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I postpone other things an try to add some material based on secondary sources in the forseeable future. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Túrin Turambar which summarizes her sad story. It might be possible to Merge the brief secondary source mentions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has absolutely no secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia guideline states that a deletion decision should be made based on existing secondary sources, not on the current state of the article. Please see above about what secondary sources exist. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above commentators have shown there are no substantial secondary sources that would be enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:6C9A:42B2:C9B2:BEF4 (talk) 18:46, 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! 22:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 846[edit]

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

WP:GNG, completely non-notable incident, wasn't even an accident as engine failures are an operational hazard and therefore NEVER get articles unless notable for something else. The assertion that this incident was the sole cause of Aeroflots decision to scrap the Tu-154s is laughable. It may have hastened its demise, but was NOT a cause. Petebutt (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a plainly non-notable accident. It shows up in the list of incidents for the aircraft type, but the surrounding incidents only emphasize how minor this one was. Mangoe (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per proposer, clear not really of note for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it was only a minor incident, I can well imagine that more than a few people are interested. TheImaCow (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (original author) I created this article based on the missing articles list (Aviation accident task force). It is notable for a Russian flag-carrier, which is Government-owned to retire a Russian-built aircraft. Mikecalls (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though the accident was pretty minor, it led to Aeroflot, and many other airlines completely removing the Tupolev Tu-154 from service. If the article is deleted, the information should at least be included in another article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tupolev Tu-154 under "Operational History." It's dubious even to categorize this event as an "incident" when it's unclear whether the airframe actually sustained significant damage; it seems that the individual aircraft was scrapped only because Aeroflot didn't want to pay to repair an older, inefficient type. If this event did in fact lead to the type's retirement, it's only notable in the context of the type's operational history. Carguychris (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article states: Subsequently, Aeroflot made a decision to withdraw all of the remaining Tu-154s from their fleet and replace them with Airbus A320 aircraft. This indicates long-term significance to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Russian is not good enough to go through the one source that might support a claim that this incident brought about the retirement decision, but the wording of the paragraph in question tends to support the view that Aeroflot was already looking to replace this model with newer aircraft, and that insofar as the incident contributed to the decision, it was only one of a host of such incidents. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence that THIS incident was the sole cause of removing the Tu-154, which was due to retire in any caase!--Petebutt (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Minor aviation "accident" without any fatalities. Sources don't seem to state this sole event was the cause of Aeroflot deciding to scrap the Tu-154s from its fleet. SD0001 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom Vacations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG\WP:NCORP. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. gets passing mentions in gnews, mainly advertorial. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think the point of WP:BASIC is that there needs to be a way to account for subjects that have enough non-trivial coverage to amount to substantial coverage. WP:NCORP rules out non-notable awards as passing mentions that amount to trivial coverage. However, if we deem these awards to be notable in the field, then the subject probably passes BASIC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG especially when non-English sources are added in. I did see a lot of advertorial coverage but I expect that with all travel companies. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Adverts do not convey notability. Care to share the significant coverage you have found? It may improve the article. Kleuske (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, here’s a link to at least a dozen. I suspect that they are so well regarded that every LGBTQ travel site that isn’t direct competition will have coverage on them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are basically adverts, based on info provided by the company themselves, a.k.a. churnalism. They even get the foto credits. That’s hardly the kind of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, CORPDEPTH calls for. Kleuske (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - But they do help meet GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, no they don't just as you can't substitute a bucket of broken glass for the lack of one large piece. Graywalls (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So far I’ve found:
- "7 Tour Operators Specializing in LGBT Travel". Leisure Group Travel. 2018-04-07. Retrieved 2020-05-09.</ref>
- "For LGBTQ travelers, river cruises are the rage". NBC News. Retrieved 2020-05-09.</ref>
- "Readers' Choice Awards 2008 Part Five". www.outtraveler.com. 2008-10-10. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Lone Star Chic". www.outtraveler.com. 2009-04-10. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Fall 2008 | Ten Trips that will Change Your Life". www.outtraveler.com. 2008-06-27. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Winter 2007 | Readers' Choice Awards 2007". www.outtraveler.com. 2007-10-18. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Fall 2006 | Safari Sojourn". www.outtraveler.com. 2006-08-15. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Exclusive | Get Out, Give Back!". www.outtraveler.com. 2009-01-23. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Tour Operator Spotlight: Zoom Vacations". www.outtraveler.com. 2008-12-11. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
Tour of the week:
- Karlin, Rick (February 15, 2016). "Pro Progress: Cuba Shines as a LGBT-Friendly Travel Destination". Miami Herald.</ref>
- "TRAVEL Carnival in Rio: Plan 2016 now - Gay Lesbian Bi Trans News - Windy City Times". www.windycitymediagroup.com. Retrieved 2020-05-09.</ref>
- "Brazil, how to prepare - Gay Lesbian Bi Trans News - Windy City Times". www.windycitymediagroup.com. Retrieved 2020-05-09.</ref>
- "Tour of the Week: India with Zoom Vacations". www.outtraveler.com. 2011-05-06. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Tour of the Week: Madrid Pride with Zoom Vacations". www.outtraveler.com. 2011-04-15. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Lone Star Chic". www.outtraveler.com. 2009-04-10. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Tour of the Week: New Years in Rio with Zoom Vacations". www.outtraveler.com. 2010-11-19. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Tour of the Week Guatemala with Zoom Vacations". www.outtraveler.com. 2011-02-18. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
- "Tour of the Week: Peru with Zoom Vacations". www.outtraveler.com. 2011-06-17. Retrieved 2020-05-08.</ref>
Most are brief mentions, however they can yield some content to build a good article meeting GNG. This is also an older entertainment company so much of the coverage they got was never online so that shouldn’t be held against them. In their field they seem to be highly regarded. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- comment All of those Out Traveler would collectively considered ONE SOURCE, and it's not totally an independent source especially if Zoom Vacations has a business relationship with the publication as an advertiser. NBC only has a trivial mention. See WP:MULTSOURCES. Graywalls (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep When googling a found multiple uses of the term in news articles. https://www.forbes.com/sites/loisaltermark/2020/04/10/these-dream-destination-backgrounds-turn-your-zoom-into-a-tropical-vacation/, https://www.businessinsider.com/travel-themed-zoom-backgrounds. Both of these articles elaborate how this has become a trend and are from reputable sources. This is also a very current and timely topic that people may be googling. dscotty26 (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Forbes CONTRIBUTORS are not considered a reliable source. Business Insider is undetermined, but that is about Zoom app and vacation and has NOTHING to do with Zoom Vacations the company. Graywalls (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Herb; that article is about the "co-owner, and chief marketing officer" of Zoom Vacations, and chair of International LGBTQ+ Travel Association. --Closeapple (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill boutique travel agency. WP:MILL, WP:NCORP. News paper running articles about traveling during recession. That's not really all that unusual. Graywalls (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above comment above relist note. KidAd (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 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. Spas were given exactly the weight they deserved. None. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin R. Turner[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Its has been repeatedly edited by a confirmed COI account - the article subject himself editing under Silkfield (talk · contribs) - to include quotes, links, and summaries of his own primary sources such as self-published books and website. There is a single event (a "moneyless" walk around the world) for which there is a BBC source and a couple others, but this coverage is not significant and seems based on a purely promotional stunt. Editing this article seems to be another such promotional effort to push his economic theories. Overall, I see no reason that this article merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superficial referenciness does not pass even a cursory inspection. Guy (help!) 09:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for self promotion. We need to stop the use of it as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject is worthy of a Wikipedia article, can be improved, and deletion is unwarranted. Reasons as follows:

There are in fact 17 contributors to this article, including myself and excluding bots.^[1] As mentioned, I previously acknowledged potential conflict of interest and have endeavoured to maintain neutrality in my contributions.^[2] Being the subject myself does not nor should preclude me from writing about myself. There are aspects of my personal life for example that no-one else would know better than I to write about, and that readers may be interested in^[3]. If there are particular sections that you think are distorted or unfair, please direct me to them so I can improve the article instead of deleting it.

I contend that I am an author who meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria. I have developed a modicum of new thinking in the field of socio-economics, especially an open access economy, on which I have published two books, one of which (Into The Open Economy) has been cited twice in scholarly publications and translated into nine different languages.^[4]^[5]^[6] I have gained significant reputation for my work among a particular anticulture community, which you may or may not agree with, but is no less significant.^[7]^[8] (This Wikipedia article has received over 8,000 visits)^[9]

The BBC source relating to the ‘moneyless walk around the world’ was carried by many other media as well, including AFP and Yahoo News. (many other links have since deceased)^[10]^[11] It was not a ‘promotional stunt’ insofar as there was nothing to promote apart from the idea itself. Apparently it was newsworthy at the time. (2013) I have since also given a TED talk on the subject.^[12]

I admit to being a novice somewhat in Wikipedia contributions, and am happy to address whatever issues with the article you deem appropriate in order to improve it rather than delete it. Thank you. Silkfield (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Silkfield (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

I have since also given a TED talk on the subject...
Except it wasn't actually a [TED Talk: the presentation was made at TEDxGalway, which was an independent local event. ("TEDx are independent events similar to TED in presentation. They can be organized by anyone who obtains a free license from TED, and agrees to follow certain principles.") --Calton | Talk 04:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

references

References

^ "Colin R. Turner: Revision history", Wikipedia, retrieved 2020-05-21
^ "Talk:Colin R. Turner", Wikipedia, 2018-06-05, retrieved 2020-05-21
^ "Colin R. Turner", Wikipedia, 2020-05-18, retrieved 2020-05-21
^ "Amazon". www.amazon.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
^ "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com.au. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
^ "open access economy - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
^ "Best Alternate Economy Books (17 books)". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
^ Wiley, Troy (2017-07-17). "Money Free Movements, Projects & Initiatives". Medium. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
^ "Pageviews Analysis". tools.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
^ "'Moneyless Man' attempts to walk round the world". en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
^ "Irishman Colin Turner aka Freeworlder and his girlfriend are..." Getty Images. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
^ Turner, Colin R., What would happen if everything was free?, retrieved 2020-05-21

Most other editors of the article are performing maintenance edits that do not add to the substantive content, or removing overly promotional text added by you. Guy (help!) 13:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to belabor it much, but I have a couple things to point out since you brought them up. Firstly, it was a local TEDx talk independent from TED, and misleadingly stating in the article (as you did here) is exactly what prompted me to finally take this step. Second, all the coverage around the "moneyless walk" seems to originate from the AFP news agency (and then reproduced on BBC and Yahoo) which has an "on-demand" service that will "tell the stories that bring your message to life" for "dedicate a team of journalists to the production of tailor-made content" to "ensure reactivity, quality and top-of-the-range SEO". This service "creates the original content you need: videos and photos; text reports". They are a "news agency" for hire. -- Netoholic @ 14:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every single reference thrown there is, as far as I can tell, unreliable. The TED Talk, isn't really a TED Talk, and the two books are from a supposed publisher ("Applied Image") that has absolutely no web footprint at all and seem to be held -- according to WorldCat -- by a single library in Auckland, New Zealand. So no, not even close to meeting notability guidelines. --Calton | Talk 04:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to locate "Applied Image" also and the closest match I found was an on-demand print shop. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the talk was a TEDx filmed in Galway that is now on the main TED site. I will amend it. I don't know from where the news story in 2013 originated from except that I was invited to participate in a number of interviews. Interest probably came from a press release.Silkfield (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article has interest is researched and authentic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick9tap (talk • contribs) 16:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick9tap above is an editor with 3 total edits prior to this vote, from over 10 years ago. I contend this is a WP:SLEEPER vote. -- Netoholic @ 01:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having observed Turner's research and activities over many years I definitely would 'keep'. His Free World Charter document has been signed by over 50,000 individuals globally. His insight and profound thoughts and publications have been instrumental in the development of potentially world changing alternative economic theories. As an impoverished Irish author and musician who gives away his books for free it is difficult to justifiably accuse him of self-promotion.
Turner's realisations have been a major force in the establishment of several contending political parties since 2013, significantly advancing the dialectical rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9548:FC00:4044:93F:6C5C:EFAD (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Colin Turner has inspired hundreds of thousands of people with his talks, books, apps and webpages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.98.168 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our BLPs are (should be) subject to rigorous scrutiny and the highest level of policy-adherence. This article, unfortunately, does neither. There is an absolute lack of persistent, in-depth coverage in either reputed news media or the literature to pass the most basic requirements of either NAUTHOR or ANYBIO.
And re. the concerns expressed above: yes, I'm sure the closing admin will give the weight to the SPA votes that they deserve. ——Serial^# 13:39, 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! 22:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kafayat Sanni[edit]

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

routine news item, BIO:ONEEVENT. The first woman pilot in the Nigerian Air Force (Blessing Liman) might possibly be notable, but going beyond this into various specialities is getting indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keepi have gone through this article and checked information on Nigerian women who are flying in the Nigerian Air Force. while (Blessing Liman) is the first female pilot in Nigerian Air Force, she does not fly a fighter aircraft. I found this from the explanation of the spokesman of Nigerian Air Force Air Commodore Ibikunle Daramola [55]. I think that what will be notable in this circumstance, being an air force, are officers that fly fighter aircraft and not officers that fly any aircraft because there are other women who are pilots in Nigeria but flying commercial aircraft. I therefore think that Kafayat Sanni being the first to fly a fighter jet and Tolulope Arotile being the first to fly a fighter military helicopter are more notable than Blessing Liman. Consequently, I propose that these articles should not be deleted. i have also edited the article and included the above mentioned link.--Obihoja (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. The subject of the article is not notable & this article per se isn’t necessary. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first female combat pilot in an air force is certainly notable. I don't think there would be any question of keeping her if she served in the air forces of the UK, USA, Canada, etc. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Blessing Liman page it states that "On 27 April 2012, she made history by becoming Nigeria's first female combat pilot..." but this page states "Kafayat Sanni is the first female combatant fighter pilot in the Nigerian Air Force", they can't both be first, so who was it? If Liman was first then what is the basis of Sanni's notability? Mztourist (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first x to do y is not a sign of notability if y is not inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage on Nigerian Air Force should be sufficient, no need for dedicated page. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nigerian Air Force#2010s. Subject does not pass WP:NSOLDIER or WP:GNG, but is mentioned at the target so redirecting is the best option per ATD. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Celestina007: BLPs should utilise the highest sourcing. This does not. As such, given the earth of coverage in reliable sources, it fails NSOLDIER and BASIC. ——Serial^# 13:41, 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! 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TierZoo[edit]

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

Youtuber with trivial coverage. Not notable enough. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article clearly passes WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources,, with significant coverage in this article:[56] by Kotaku which is solely about the subject, combined with further significant coverage in a lengthy paragraph here:[57] and another paragraph here: [58], albeit the last one is in Spanish. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Devonian Wombat apart from the Kotaku article, others are simply single para mentions in blog style lists from sources that are not reliable in this regard. The bar for GNG is not this low. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- A paragraph of coverage is clearly significant coverage, trivial coverage would be things like a couple of sentences, and indeed, the other sources within the article are examples of what trivial coverage actually is. A paragraph is also especially significant coverage when the paragraph is as lengthy as the one cited in the second source. This an article on YouTube, not medicine or some other topic when sources might especially be disregarded as unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant in-depth coverage in multiple sources. A listicle in a college newspaper is not sufficient. Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage relies on blogs and other unreliable sources; a BLP needs the highest level of sourcing, which this lacks. Fails BASIC. ——Serial^# 13:48, 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 no consensus. What a mess Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in Asia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

General notability guideline:

"Significant coverage" of this article's intended scope is not referenced by the sources. The sources are region or country specific without discussing Asia as a whole (note that the Middle East is completely left out). Attempting to combine all of the sources is creating a subject that is typically not viewed at higher, continental focused, level. Basically, the article here is overreaching past the sources.

Original research is also a concern since the intended subject of the article is analysis or synthesis of not stated by the sources. All of the content does not establish notability of the subject as discussed at WP:CONTN.

Sockstrike clean up squadron! ——Serial^# 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

}

Human Rights Watch is used for 16/48 sources, or roughly 60% of the text. The NGO is a source not "Independent of the subject" with its bias towards action and does not intend to pretend to be neutral. Please see their mission statement: "Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice." About half the article reads as if it is someone's pet project to summarize their website's country profiles. The content and tone is more emotive than in an encyclopedic factual voice.

Readability:

The intended scope of this article is not manageable. Adding suitable information to the "Significant human rights violations" or adding the Middle East in the "History of human rights in Asia" would hamper readability as discussed at WP:LENGTH.

General clean up:

Besides the point of view concerns, the "See also" and "External links" sections are misused to inappropriately direct traffic instead of truly building Wikipedia. Note that the "See also" section contains links to articles already linked in the prose, while the "External links" section shows what could be better used as sources. I am not accusing any editors of having nefarious motives. This is important information but it needs to be presented within Wikipedia's standards.

Alternatives to deletion:

This article is not suitable for the main space in its current form, and it is doubtful it will ever be due to its potentially huge scope. I believe the best option would be to split the usable information off in to regional articles such as Human rights in the Middle East and Human rights in East Asia, or maybe the country specific articles like Human rights in China. This article might even be suitable as a list directing readers to the various pages. I suppose it could be relegated to user space or incubation, but there has not been substantial improvement since the first deletion discussion over a year ago. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights. Orangejuicedude (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)>[reply]

Keep. The topic is obviously notable. A quick search on Google Books turns up multiple books from reputable publishers literally titled "Human Rights in Asia".^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] I agree with nom that there are some major issues with the article, but most of these are fixable; nom should bear in mind that AfD is not cleanup. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk)

References

^ Randall Peerenboom; Carole J. Petersen; Albert H. Y. Chen, eds. (2006). Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA. Routledge. ISBN 1-134-23880-0.
^ Leena Avonius; Damien Kingsbury, eds. (2008). Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-60639-5.
^ Thomas W. D. Davis; Brian Galligan, eds. (2011). Human Rights in Asia. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84844-680-9.
^ Vera Mackie, ed. (2015). Ways of Knowing About Human Rights in Asia. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-83825-3.
^ Fernand de Varennes; Christie M. Gardiner, eds. (2019). Routledge Handbook of Human Rights in Asia. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-85570-0.

And again... ——Serial^# 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~::I believe you inadvertantly made my point. It is easy to assume notability, but we do not have an article Human rights in South America. Instead we have a category and Human rights in Colombia.~~

Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA.: Southest Asia, China, India

Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate: China, Southeast Asia

Human Rights in Asia: This appears to be the same exact text as book 1.

Ways of Knowing About Human Rights in Asia: Focuses on Japanese occupation of lands in WWII.

Handbook of Human Rights in Asia: Primarily Southeast Asia, Sri Lanka

There is Human rights in East Asia or even a split to Human rights in Southeast Asia where most of these sources can be used. Asia is too broad. Add the problematic use of the current article and deletion + splitting + maybe incubation is the only viable answer here. Orangejuicedude (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POVFORK of main articles of human rights related pages about countries. Written like an essay as well. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per WP:NOPAGE. Badly written essay. Azuredivay (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contentious issue that needs to be handled only on the main articles from where the content has been taken to unnecessarily create this article. Ashishkafle (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate topic because it was covered as a whole in a number of books, for example, Routledge Handbook of Human Rights in Asia, Human Rights in Asia, Emerging Regional Human Rights Systems in Asia, and so on, and so on [59]. The content is mostly sourced and on the subject. Yes, it needs a lot of improvements, but this is not a reason for deletion. Something like Human rights in South America would also be a legitimate subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::Again, these sources are prominently about East Asia where "Asia" does not mean the entire continent. The sources are fine, but we have a different broader of "Asia" here.Orangejuicedude (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, none of the sources covers every territory, and East Asia is usually the focus, but they intend to cover whole Asia. Besides, there is an organization, Asian Human Rights Commission that was mentioned in these books and publish something itself. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is far too broad for any meaningful analysis or examination. As it stands right now, this article could cover all of Asia, throughout all of history. The human rights of different regions of Asia, and different countries can be extremely different from one another. As it is now, the article mostly focuses on East Asia, with a little bit about Central and South Asia included as well (the Middle East is not mentioned at all). Nearly all of these analyses are not written in a very encyclopedic form, much more like an ESSAY, with a lack of meaningful sources for most. Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Too broad" is not a good argument. We do have pages on general subjects like Asia, and they are just fine. It should be improved? Yes, certainly. Not a reason for deletion. It is important there are many books on this broad subject as a whole (see examples above). My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More... ——Serial^# 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

:::This article is not "just fine", though. We have had over a year for improvement and none have been made. As mentioned, it would be fantastic if the article as userfied for someone to bring up o an appropriate standard. I believe it would languish due to the over broad scope and eventually be split while a list would be needed to point readers to the appropriate locations. The article is not suitable for the mainspace as is. There has got to be a point where it is broken down and retried a different way since allowing it to stay has proven to provide little value to the project as a whole. I would actually argue that allowing it to stay has resulted in a worse article since any attempts to remove MoS deficiencies result in instant reverts by editors who simply assume it is a worthwhile piece.

And the issue with notability of the topic as a whole. Why not Human Rights in the Eurasion Continent? Iraq is wildly different than Japan. Human rights in The Philippines is not relatable to Tajikistan any more than it is with Peru. Attempting to compartmentalize it by continent over region doesn't give the reader a better understanding of the general topic of human rights. Orangejuicedude (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one should simply check books on the subject (like that one), and they explain why combining different countries in Asia was appropriate. This is not about territorial compartmentalization, but about common history or common problems with human rights in certain parts of the world. No, I do not see enough sources on Human rights in Eurasia because Europe is very different from Asia in terms of human rights. But about Asia, - yes, there are multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator. Please check contributions by user Orangejuicedude :::::Please, for the sake of discuasion, tell me why you think Tajikistan and Japan should share an article other than the notion of continental plates. What is binding between the two culture, language, or history wise besides a centuries old trade route and the incorrect definition of lamdmass? The sources don't try to so I won't bother.[User:Orangejuicedude|Orangejuicedude]] (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[60] who started this AfD. With comments like that one, Orangejuicedude is certainly not a new user. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ——Serial^# 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

::No I am not a new user. I have a dozen FA and GAs under my belt, probably well more than you. COVID-cation has presented an opportunity to edit on Wikipedia. I chose to honor the whole "fresh start" thing by simply logging in and and attempting to make edits in topic spaces I was never previously involved in. So thanks, a lot of us are bored as fuck and trying to pass time during a pandemic--the last FA has to be at least 5 years old and was about sports, if I am not mistaken. I don't see how any of that is your concern or not an argument solely directed towards ignoring the reasoning I have presented to instead rely on a personal attack. You should actually feel bad and be admonished for steering the discussion towards the person making the argument instead of the context, nerd. "Winning" is not the goal of Wikipedia. I can say we were better than you when I was active.Orangejuicedude (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through Orangejuicedude's comments. Not only is this not a fresh start, he's shown that his indefinite block for harassment was justified at his talk page and by harassing another editor. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is obviously notable and articles for deletion is not cleanup. Iamnotabunny (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely bizarre nomination, and of course the page is now a bloody mess. The "Delete" !votes alleging a fork are missing the point of child- and sub-categories of articles: I suspect an ethnopolitical POV. But the topic is the subject of massive amounts of coverage, in reliable journalism, the literature and scholarship. ——Serial^# 13:57, 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! 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putu Ayu Saraswati[edit]

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

local beauty pageant winner. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you sure she is non-notable beauty queen"??? she is popular not only in Indonesia. You can check her page, all of the references from reliable sources (via RS) is not only using Bahasa Indonesia Article on websites but also an english article, french article and also some Indian website that posted about her. How come she is non-notable beauty queen like you said?? You're the one that don't want to check first before deleting the article pages. Plus Putu Ayu Saraswati has been reviewed already by User:Darwinek a long time ago, so many wikipedian has been contributing to give a hands for the page. I don't know why you guys dont want to check first instead of report and report deletion.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert >>> For your information she is an Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly Ambassador.^[1]^[2] Which she is part of our Indonesian government parties beside of being a beauty queen. You should check first before commenting and propose deletion for her page.

References

^ "Ayu Saraswati Dkk Jadi Duta MPR RI" (in Indonesian). Nusa Bali News. Retrieved March 13, 2020.
^ "Puteri Indonesia Jadi Duta MPR RI" (in Indonesian). Detik News. Retrieved March 12, 2020.

Comment article is heavy on non-reliable or covert advertising sites like globalbeauties.com, missitems.be, pageantcircle.com, pageantempire.com, and beautypageants.indiatimes.com (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274 about covert advertising at the latter). I'm leaning towards delete. However as there may also be mainstream press establishing notability, would like to hear what others say – Indonesian language is not my forte. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consideration changing on non-reliable sites Thanks Bri for the comment and assistance. I'm trying to do some translate title, while deleting and changing some non-reliable references with the new one based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274 and trying to find some local sources from Indonesia's Newspaper and Indonesia's Magazine like Kompas, Jawa Pos and The Bali Times. Hope other editors could lend a hand to improve for better, too. But Thanks for the help. Appreciate it.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 3:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunkarta please help to fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.74.92.171 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to meet notability guidelines. See WP:GNG--Richie Campbell (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep qualified to meet notability guidelines. She has won a major national beauty pageant (Puteri Indonesia), specifically Puteri Indonesia 2020. The Jawa Pos National Newspaper, Kompas Newspaper Article, Indonesian Times, Liputan 6 article, Insert live Infotainment, and many References has minimally adequate depth, and the minor coverage on other sources is cumulatively adequate. The article is well sourced and not promotional. I have not found anything on wikipedia policy on pageants. My opinion is that the winner of a national pageant officially recognized by the country who have been recognized in non trivial RS articles should be included. Putu Ayu Saraswati and Yuridia Durán are both national pageant winners and both of them gonna be competed on Miss International 2020 representing Indonesia and Mexico. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:I Nyoman Gede Anila One line mentions are not enough to pass GNG. Notability is not inherited. SIGCOV required in RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:MistyGraceWhite SIGCOV in RS is already mentioned and included on References, so what else? Its weird to see Yuridia Durán article can passed from the deletion while this page cannot. It's very biased. Both of the article already has a SIGCOV on RS. To be honest Putu Ayu Saraswati also more recognized as a oublic figure than Yuridia Durán, all of the social media of Putu Ayu Saraswati is verified already just like her instagram, while Yuridia Durán is very lack of reliable sources than Putu Ayu Saraswati article. And what do u means by saying "ONE LINE MENTIONS"?? She is the main headline topic in every article I mentioned here, its just all her SIGCOV of her, nobody else mentioned in the article. You better check it out first>>>Kompas Newspaper Article, Indonesian Times, Liputan 6 article, Insert live Infotainment, and many References I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ qualified SIGCOV on RS she is being a member of ambassador for her country's national parliament of Indonesian People's Consultative Assembly Ambassador, indicates significance coverage (WP:SIGCOV); as sourced here Indonesia PCA Ambassador (1) , Indonesia PCA Ambassador (2), Indonesia PCA Ambassador (3), and many more you can search onlne by yourself.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:I Nyoman Gede Anila only one vote per account is allowed. An ambassador for a country may be notable if mentioned in RS, but she is not a true ambassador. so not be confused by the word ambassador, it is just a trumped up title of no political bearing. she is not an elected member of the parliament, nor a true ambassador. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow for further consideration of sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no in-depth, persistent coverage in reliable sources. Fails our most basic BLP requirements at ANYBIO. And could the article's creator not keep voting keep? Or badgering everyone else, for that matter. ——Serial^# 14:13, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Singh Chhabra[edit]

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

The subject fails to pass notability (WP:GNG) and the content is written in a promotional format (WP:PROMO). Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has some media coverage but not in detail. Doesn't pass criteria at WP:ARTIST. — GargAvinash ^talk 04:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I presume WP:NACTOR is not being challenged by the nominator, which I think is fair given the subject's long-running roles in TV shows and other film appearances (this IMDb page is more comprehensive than the one provided in the article: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm10373748/?ref_=tt_cl_t7). In regard to WP:GNG, there is coverage—but the question is whether it meets both WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Here are some sources:

→https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/lifestyle/script-of-a-lifetime-789394 – The source is The Tribune, for which I haven't been able to find a consensus as to reliability, although I haven't found any claims that it is unreliable, either; and the coverage goes beyond what I would consider to be trivial.

→https://www.ibtimes.co.in/raabta-movie-review-ratings-by-audience-live-updates-sushant-singh-rajput-kriti-sanon-director-730009 – The source is International Business Times, which has an average rating in terms of reliability, and the coverage here is just some very brief praise.

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/karan-singh-chhabra-shoots-for-half-girlfriend-on-ye-hai-mohabbatein-set/articleshow/58772055.cms – This is an article dedicated to the subject—however, the source is The Times of India, which, following the recently consensus, is a source we have to be wary of.

There are several other Times of India write-ups, too, as well as The Indian Express and The New Indian Express articles which provide mentions. Given that I believe there to be a good WP:NACTOR case, I think that the average WP:GNG case is enough for a "Weak Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage, being in the vein of passing mentions and WP:MILL, is insufficient to pass the basic requirements of either NACTOR or ANYBIO. ——Serial^# 14:16, 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. Noone argues they pass gng and demonstrated not to meet prof. Argumente about scholorships are not compelling on their own. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rifaat Hussain[edit]

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

Promotional profile, WP is not a LinkedIn. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep I am a deletionist but this article certainly passes WP:ACADEMIC, however it should be rewritten. Eg. the long list of peer reviewed articles seems a CV. WP:RESUME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postconfused (talk • contribs) 08:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of publications is way too long and some of the sources are ropey, but I’m not seeing any reason to delete. Mccapra (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search at Google Scholar failed to show me anything to meet the first criteria at WP:NPROF and I didn't see anything that meets any of the other criteria there. I also didn't find the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. Writing a large number of rarely cited articles does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Ms4263nyu. The article needs some clean-up by removing anything promotional. Other than that, it is good enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NPROF. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would show me how he meets WP:NPROF, which is the same as WP:NACADEMIC, I would be happy to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't appear to have much in the way of citations for WP:NPROF C1, nor signs of any of the other NPROF criteria. And I don't think hosting limited distribution talk shows for a short period is enough for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, citability is too low, and nothing else indicates passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. None of the 'keep' comments above indicate why the article should be kept and in which way(s) it might pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Qualifies for a relist to try and provide clarity about which NPROF/NACADEMIC criteria, if any, this person meets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My reason for !voting ‘keep’ was a. He is a department chair in a major national university and b. If he’s a visiting professor at Stanford then he has senior status within his field. Mccapra (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An average professor can likely arrange to be a visiting professor at Stanford, if she knows someone there and can swing it financially. And WP:NPROF C6 is not met by department chair. Are you arguing for WP:NPROF, or something else? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mccapra. For whatever it's worth, I'll say this... if the article subject is a fairly notable person and it can be improved, why outright DELETE it? Why not let someone improve it? Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not find any reason for the article to be deleted and also AfD is not cleanup. A normal search on Google Books reveals his WP:NACADEMIC notability. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaqib Anjum Aafī, a google books search is not so relevant to WP:NPROF. Do you want to argue for WP:NAUTHOR? That would generally require multiple reviews of his books in independent reliable sources. I didn't quickly find any, but would be interested if someone else did. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an uninvolved administrator let me drop a note. It's important for a person to base their participation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Quite a few !votes are examples of one or more arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In this case those who think it should be kept are probably best off stating which specific WP:NPROF criteria they feel Hussain meets while those who think it should be deleted would probably be best off stating specifically why they feel Hussain does not meet any of the NPROF criteria. Since I relisted this I will not be closing and I hope participants find this reminder useful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per Barkeep49, I'm going to talk through the WP:NPROF criteria. For C1, we usually look at citations. It depends on field, but I think in international relations it would be reasonable to expect a few papers with 100+ citations on Google Scholar (or adjusted and comparable total from elsewhere, if Google Scholar is not telling the whole story). Instead, as far as I can tell he maxes out at 20. I see no signs of awards for C2, C3. C4 would be met if he'd published a notable textbook or other innovation in higher ed (but I don't see any signs of that). C5 requires a named chair, which there is no evidence of. For C6, the directorship of RCSS is interesting, however, this appears to be a small outfit with perhaps 20 researchers, and I don't think it is met. C7 essentially says that GNG still applies to professors, and I don't see any arguments for GNG. C8 requires chief editorship of a well-established journal, of which there is no sign. Note that visiting professorships are irrelevant to WP:NPROF, and department chair does not meet C6. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a more detailed explanation than I provided. No one has yet provide any evidence that he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The careful analysis above makes clear he does not pass WP:PROF. Notability through his work as a media host is plausible, but no such argument has been made and we would need in-depth sources about that work for him to pass WP:GNG, which we don't currently have. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full rank professor (NB not a US 'professor'), Fulbright scholar (not handed out to any and all, *especially* if you are from Pakistan), frequent commentator in Pakistani media, over the years quoted in the New York Times (2010), The Guardian (2014) and on CNN (2016), Board of Advisors of the Jinnah Institute, course director at the Foreign Service Academy, 30+ years of academic publications (JSTOR turns up peer-reviewed work back to 1985), Minister level appointment at Pakistan's Embassy to the US in 1995 (p.50), former Executive Director of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies in Sri Lanka...this person is a senior policy intellectual in the upper echelons of Pakistan's foreign service establishment; UCS, easily passes BASIC...and AfD is not clean up.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulbright scholar, passes WP:NPROF. But I removed the massive list of articles per WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. ——Serial^# 14:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone show me where it says that being a Fulbright scholar grants automatic WP notability? It's true that he was a "Visiting Fulbright Scholar", but according to the Fulbright website there are 800 of those annually. Usually automatic notability isn't given that broadly, but I'll go with established consensus, if there is one. Papaursa (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See here for some previous discussion on Fulbright notability. I'd generally agree that a Fulbright per se does not confer notability, but it certainly adds to it. However, given the pool of potential applicants for a Fulbright is in the millions and 800 visiting scholar awards are given annually, someone who has one represents a very, very small minority and they are simply not easy to get. I think it is important in this case to see the Fulbright as contributing towards notability rather than taking a reductive approach and trying to find a single element signifying notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I agree that getting a Fulbright is an achievement, but the problem I'm having is that I'm not seeing that he meets any of the notability criteria for academics nor does he seem to meet WP:GNG. Being successful in your profession is not the same as being WP notable. There are many successful people who aren't considered WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say anything more than quote WP:BASIC for your consideration: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.... Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:03, 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! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShortScience.org[edit]

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

Seems to be spam. The sources aren’t very good either. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 02:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could well be a worthwhile project, but at best, it's too soon for there to be a Wikipedia article about the site. Such few sources that exist are some combination of primary/self-published or unreliable (e.g., an arXiv preprint that hasn't been peer-reviewed). XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XOR. ——Serial^# 14:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XOR. The ICML paper is the only really strong source, but it's written by the site's founders. Then we have a preprint, a podcast, and a GitHub repo. The "TechLeer" blog post is verging on WP:SIGCOV, but it seems like that site may be in the neighbourhood of user-generated content (per their about page). Colin M (talk) 15:07, 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! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Angol[edit]

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

Not notable, no good references (BLP issues) JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He passes WP:NBOX, but I’m presuming these three articles, [61][62][63], don’t satisfy GNG? That’s all I could find on him. – ².O.^Boxing 14:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:22, 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! 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Engineering and Technology (Pakistan)[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institutions are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep articles on the base of assumptions. Your comment is not policy based as it changed after RfC. The article has to pass WP:GNG for which it need WP:RS. Störm (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The highly controversial RfC only referred to secondary institutions. It most certainly cannot be extended to tertiary institutions when they were never mentioned in it just because some editors would like it to be. No assumptions here, just consensus, which has always been as I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Article is a promotional piece. The above WP:ITSNOTABLE comment is unconvincing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mark Warner#2001 election. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballad of Mark Warner[edit]

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

Non-notable campaign/novelty song; fails WP:NSONG. KidAd (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename to Warner (song), which appears to be the actual name of the song based on the sources I found. There is enough coverage on this song to pass GNG, though said coverage is not in the article right now, there is this article:[64] entirely devoted to the song, and also this article: [65] and this one: [66], each of which devotes a couple of paragraphs to it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge/redirect to Mark Warner#2001 election. Part of his campaign and can and should be covered there even with sources, not independently notable enough or with in-depth content warranting a separate article per WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is merged, 2001 Virginia gubernatorial election would clearly be the better target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark Warner#2001 election: Per Reywas92. The jingle can be discussed in the politician's article, along with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Blps where the subject clearly does not pass gng are not usuwlly kept for technical sng passes. Producer grammys are a weaker argument anyway Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Someillan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject has added a fair bit to the article over time, as "Joelsom", but the content is mostly unsourced and feels like a personal web page for the subject, not an encyclopedic entry. I can't find sources to support GNG and the references present mostly mention the subject in passing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparent autobiography, fails GNG and MUSICBIO. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete autobiographies are forbidden on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not forbidden but heavily discouraged, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or draft he has won two Latin Grammys so that would pass one of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC but the article is heavily promotional and would either need TNT or a total rewrite, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per Atlantic306, as the subject is notable in music WP:NMUSIC Sweetteaplz (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If he were a musician, winning two Grammy's might make him notable, but we don't have a producer category at NMUSIC, so I don't know that he does meet any criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification. If he is actually notable, wouldn't you suggest keep instead? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but upon a search of him I couldn't find articles written. His references #2, and #3 don't work, and most are passing mentions. Sweetteaplz (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a way to keep an article knowing that the artist is WP:NMUSIC, but there is no coverage of him that's substantial? Sweetteaplz (talk) 01:52, 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! 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZingSoft[edit]

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

Data visualization company with no reliable secondary sources or notability as far as I can tell. Article currently unreferenced. Nanophosis (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nanophosis (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A promotional article created and moved into mainspace by a WP:COI WP:SPA: [67]. No evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 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! 22:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey[edit]

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

Contested PROD but original reasoning still applies. "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Article was created by the film's director, who has a long history of promotional editing. All of the reliable sourcing either is actually about the subject (AKA doesn't mention the documentary at all) or are passing mentions in relation to a non-notability conferring award it received at the Nashville Film Festival." Two new sources have been added, an NPR interview and post by a Huffington Post contributor (i.e.: non-reliable). Deleting and then redirecting to Matthew Washington Kennedy might be most appropriate course of action. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of independent sources. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. I haven't found a review of the film from a reliable secondary source. WP:NFO calls for two reviews from nationally known critics. I don't see it meeting the film-specific requirements or WP:GNG. The two sources recently added by the director are interviews. It is my understanding that interviews are primary. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact it was made by the creator is reason enough. Clone commando sev (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not grounds for deletion, afaics: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion & Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#List of criteria --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe & DiamondRemley39; I reach the same conclusions after my own gsearch. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero suitable coverage. Don't even redirect, don't accommodate likely COI single-purpose account in using Wikipedia as an SEO vehicle. (I don't believe this is an WP:AGF breach, given the user's account name combined with their practices.) Largoplazo (talk) 12:14, 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) 15:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

doesn't the racial bias article have serious Original research problems? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960 If the article is deleted because it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion, then one will be left to conclude that it was for the reasons abundantly spelled out in the deletion discussions and in the guidelines on which those discussions were based. They will also be left to conclude that we don't make exceptions for articles posted by authors who ignore the pointers to Wikipedia guidelines that make it amply clear why these articles are getting nominated for deletion and who choose, instead, in bad faith, to attribute other editors' actions and comments to ulterior motives rather than to those guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second Largoplazo's comment above, and concur that the accusation from Nina07011960 was made in bad faith. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nina07011960: after reading your comments here and on the talk page, I'd like you to please read WP:RGW. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is already an article on Matthew Washington Kennedy and information found in this documentary (if verifiable) could be used as a source over there. Since this article is about the film, it cannot stand because the film itself has received insufficient notice, as everyone has described very well above. Meanwhile, a much better way to inspire diversity at Wikipedia would be to repair the problems at Mr. Kennedy's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very reluctant to attribute frustration to bad faith. That term is usually applied only to deliberate attempts to interfere with our processes. It should not have been used here. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we have always had difficulty in covering material from areas and fields for which there are not mainstream sources. This is due to the basic orientation of WP on determining coverage by the existence of sources, and sometimes our own ignorance, not a deliberate attempt to decrease diversity. If anything, we make a special effort to be flexible in order to increase diversity in all its aspects--- at least in the fields where I usually work. -- FloridaArmy, perhaps you can help here--you work sometimes on similar films and people connected with them. -- Nina07011960 I would advise serious consideration to a merge with the article on Matthew Washington Kennedy--this material can always be expanded to a separate article when more sourcing is found. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, we weren't saying Nina was acting in bad faith, we said she was implying that those who are recommending deletion are acting in bad faith. "Assuming good faith... is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith," with "good faith" linked to the Wikipedia article that explains it in the ordinary English sense. Nina was implying our edits and comments have not been made in good faith. Further, "Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." For example, attributing the prospective deletion of an article to an intentional opposition to diversity, i.e., malice, to nefarious motives not in Wikipedia's interest. Largoplazo (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with DGG who suggests merging the article with the biographical article on Matthew Kennedy. The time to create an article on a film is after it has gained dissemination and received press. When the time comes that the film has received more published attention, then it might be considered to fork the article on the film. - kosboot (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search in Google for everything matching "Matthew Kennedy: One Man's Journey" and went through the results; you can see the sources I found and my notes on the article's talk page. It would appear that, though reliable, secondary, and independent sources have mentioned this film, usually in passing in a larger bit about Matthew Kennedy, there is not significant coverage, and thus it does not appear to be notable on it's own. I am in support of a merge, provided that everything merged can be sourced. Vermont (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Gamble Kennedy#Career already has a paragraph on this film, so I would have expected there to have been discussion about redirecting there as a viable alternative to deletion. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:00, 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.

[1] "Colin R. Turner: Revision history", Wikipedia, retrieved 2020-05-21

[2] "Talk:Colin R. Turner", Wikipedia, 2018-06-05, retrieved 2020-05-21

[3] "Colin R. Turner", Wikipedia, 2020-05-18, retrieved 2020-05-21

[4] "Amazon". www.amazon.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[5] "Google Scholar". scholar.google.com.au. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[6] "open access economy - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[7] "Best Alternate Economy Books (17 books)". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[8] Wiley, Troy (2017-07-17). "Money Free Movements, Projects & Initiatives". Medium. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[9] "Pageviews Analysis". tools.wmflabs.org. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[10] "'Moneyless Man' attempts to walk round the world". en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[11] "Irishman Colin Turner aka Freeworlder and his girlfriend are..." Getty Images. Retrieved 2020-05-21.

[12] Turner, Colin R., What would happen if everything was free?, retrieved 2020-05-21

[13] Randall Peerenboom; Carole J. Petersen; Albert H. Y. Chen, eds. (2006). Human Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Study of Twelve Asian Jurisdictions, France and the USA. Routledge. ISBN 1-134-23880-0.

[14] Leena Avonius; Damien Kingsbury, eds. (2008). Human Rights in Asia: A Reassessment of the Asian Values Debate. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-60639-5.

[15] Thomas W. D. Davis; Brian Galligan, eds. (2011). Human Rights in Asia. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84844-680-9.

[16] Vera Mackie, ed. (2015). Ways of Knowing About Human Rights in Asia. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-83825-3.

[17] Fernand de Varennes; Christie M. Gardiner, eds. (2019). Routledge Handbook of Human Rights in Asia. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-85570-0.

[18] "Ayu Saraswati Dkk Jadi Duta MPR RI" (in Indonesian). Nusa Bali News. Retrieved March 13, 2020.

[19] "Puteri Indonesia Jadi Duta MPR RI" (in Indonesian). Detik News. Retrieved March 12, 2020.

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[1]