Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 May	26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Sandoval[edit]

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

I made attempts to clean up this article, but noticed issues with a history of COI edits. This appears to have been created as WP:PROMO, and it has a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Many of the claims within the body of the BLP article (that have been removed) were false statements without citation. Jooojay (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jooojay (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous examples exist of significant coverage in independent reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Furthermore, many of these same sources are already referenced in the article, so I'm very confused as to why the nominator thinks there is insufficient significant coverage. The fact that the coverage is in Spanish takes away nothing. There are many Spanish speaking editors on en.wiki, myself included; for that matter, many of them are native speakers and speak the language far better than I do. Furthermore, as Google Translate has continued to improve, even an editor with zero Spanish knowledge can at least get the basic gist of things, although they won't be able to grasp the details. Now that significant coverage has been demonstrated, the remaining issues cited in the nominator's rationale are not grounds for deletion. Deletion is not cleanup, and the article's remaining issues are best solved through editing the article, not deleting it. TNT doesn't apply here either - in my experience it's only warranted when dealing with articles so incomprehensible that it's a waste of time to try and improve it through editing. That is not the case here. CJK09 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC) struck per analysis below.[reply]

Comment - I agree with most of what you said here @CJK09:, if you take a look at the talk page, the edit history, as well as the excellent research below by @Theredproject:, you can see the issue goes beyond the surface level. I don't think any amount of editing will make this person notable, which is why I nominated for deletion. Jooojay (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw two good Spanish sources in a search, and there is (at least) one museum collection in addition to the sources cited by CJK09.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish version of the article cites these sources that are not used in the English version: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] Somof those are clearly unusable, like blogspot, or dubious, like the florence biennale, but others are worth considering. like elmundo or revistadearte. Vexations (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion, seems it passes SIGCOV, not likely a promo. Drat8sub (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per argument made by Theredproject mentioned below. Drat8sub (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I arrived at this article because of his participation in the vanity exhibition Florence Biennale. @Jooojay: and I looked into the claims made in the article and found that they were unverifiable, to say the least. We discussed our research into subject on the talk page, and agreed to bring the page here for discussion.

Working from the artists’ own CV [18] I tried to verify the claims of collections, as that would most clearly satisfy NARTIST. I could not. All I could find was one painting he personally gave to the Boca Raton museum. The rest were not verified:

Most importantly, the claim to be in the Guggenheim is not verified. Seeing a claim like that which is not verified, makes me very skeptical of the rest. Same with the MoCA Mallorca, the Vatican[19] and the Bogotá Museum of Modern Art.

Several of the museum collections he claims to be in don't seem to exist:

Museum of Contemporary Art in Osaka. Japan (there is a national museum, which does not hold his work [20] and a Osaka Contemporary Art Center which has no web presence in en or jp)
Museum of Contemporary Art in Philadelphia, USA (there is a Institute of Contemporary Art, Philadelphia but it has no collection)
Museum of Contemporary Art in Milán. Italia (proposed in 2011, but never built [21])
Museum of Contemporary Art in Lima. Perú (a ficitonal museum [22])

I did see the sources that @CJK09: and @Vexations: noted but found then to be fairly routine, and part of the promotional process of showing work. Of the links noted above, the book is self published, many are interviews (and not in RS). For me it comes down to the El Mundo article, which is about him painting a backdrop for a fashion show. And the not so impartial El Imparcial article which is clearly derived from press release material because it repeats the false claims from his own autobiographical materials: inclusion in the permanent collection of the Guggenheim, and the Osaka museum (which does not exist). I don’t think we can consider that source reliable if it doesn’t engage in the most basic fact checking. It also repeats the art dealers kind of absurdly promotional language. The second El Mundo article repeats these false claims as well. @ThatMontrealIP and Drat8sub: were there others you found that exceed this?

And the Pro Arte y Cultura Group award is bogus as well: he catalyzed the creation of the award, and serves as the director of Pro Arte y Cultura Group [23] The award itself is completely not notable — I couldn’t find any references to it aside from his biography.

For me, the overriding problem is that everything is built on unverifiable claims. Claims that start with the artist, and Are repeated by the sources without fact checking, proving their unreliability. That combined with his involvement in vanity exhibitions, tips the scale for me. The claims look like they might meet NARTIST but the claims themselves Crumble when you attempt to verify them. Obviously if these claims were verified, then he would meet NARTIST, but the protocol here at Articles for Deletion is to require verifiability. Theredproject (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changing to this !vote, in light of the excellent research done by Theredproject. The articles I saw were in Spanish and looked good enough, but if the artist is trying to pass off fake collections I will up my skepticism and reuqire the existence clearer sourcing than exists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to delete based on Theredproject's excellent analysis. I will admit that I have a bit of a hair trigger with AfDs relating to subjects mostly known in foreign language countries for which significant coverage appears to exist in said language. I've seen so many AfD nominations where the nom clearly didn't even bother to search for non-English sources (clearly not the case here) that it's become kind of automatic for me. I'll definitely take note and be more careful to examine article history, talk page, etc, going forward. CJK09 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CJK09: Thank you for considering the analysis I offered. I want you to know that I do agree re: non-English sources, and often post comments here opposing to closing discussions BEFORE someone can do a proper analysis of the sources -- especially when these sources are languages that machine translation isn't so good at. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on research by Theredproject, finding that many claims are unverifiable; and the nominators findings of COI, PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. and the unreliable claims. Alex-h (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Bajaj[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) 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep or Draftify: I presume the nominator is satisfied that WP:NACTOR is met, as am I. I don't think the tone of the article is promotional, though; however, it could certainly be cleaned up a bit. Regarding WP:GNG, the subject does seem to be getting quite a lot of media coverage, including this The Indian Express write-up and many Times of India write-ups; the second Times of India reference provided in article doesn't seem too bad. There's also a lot of coverage from less reliable news outlets, as well as passing mentions from outlets like Deccan Chronicle, and The Hindustan Times covered his wedding. Though not optimal, I think a weak argument could be made for WP:GNG, and, combined with the strong argument for WP:NACTOR, I don't think deletion is necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Having thought about this a bit more, I do think the article is worth keeping, or, as an alternative, moving it to "draftspace". Dflaw4 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR - no notable roles, contribution or coverage.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First line on WP:ANYBIO: A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. WP:NACTOR is met as said by Dflaw4 above. Mr. Smart LION 14:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Seems to be borderline notable. It would still be worth drafting and improving until it's 100% passable though IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SIGCOV, not a notable actor. Drat8sub (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Does not meet WP:GNG . Alex-h (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Shah[edit]

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

This article has no sources about him. This actor contains original research and fails to establish notability. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable for anything and the article is overly promotional. It says he's known for a breakout performance in Raam, but then he's hardly even mentioned in the article for that movie. While the film won some obscure, probably not notable, award. He hasn't won anything himself though. So, I'm not seeing anything notable here. Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source, fails WP:NBIO. Drat8sub (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria. Arunram (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Lazareff[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP/N. Sources are about non-notable failed organisations which the subject has started, but not about the subject themselves. The page reads like a CV with adverts for various schemes sprinkled throughout. Furthermore, a very similar page existed under the name Fiona Scott-Lazareff but was deleted for the above reasons. It appears the creator made the page at Fiona Lazareff to circumvent the salt. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:08, 7 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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2019-11 no consensus

Logs: 2019-07 ✍️ create

Delete. I don't see any source that discusses her in-depth, some mentions in passing only. That's not enough for NBIO. Ps. Three explicit sources were discussed in prior AfD: 1) [24] - low quality as it is mostly a WP:INTERVIEW 2) [25] ditto and 3) [26] - I can't access it. Still, what I see is that neither of them is about her life, at best, about aspects of it, seemingly the same so WP:ONEEVENT. Please show me one article that is a proper biography of her? Or otherwise how she meets NBIO (awards, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dismissing reliable independent sources such as The Times and Legal Futures FOARP highlighted in a recent AfD solely on the basis of "interview" is short-sighted. The person named is the subject of two extensive articles in the newspaper of record for the United Kingdom and that alone is enough to qualify under WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E. She seems to have only gotten coverage over a brief one-week period when she called for courts to be made easier to access. Given that both sources are mostly interviews, I am not sure whether they provide significant coverage in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BLP1E very obviously does not apply in this case as there are clearly two events (the litigant-in-person advocacy in late 2018, the missing persons advocacy in early 2017) separated by more than a year. These are not interviews but coverage of her campaigns. Obviously a pass for WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is articles in the Telegraph, Times, Metro, Express, Daily Mail, Guardian, Mirror, Scotsman, Glasgow Herald, The Standard. It's only one story. I really don't see a lot of life in the article, certainly it could be reuter's story that has been shared. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the similar reasons given by scope_creep. - Hatchens (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't add up to GNG imo. b uidhe 08:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another foolish effort to delete a biography of someone who has done noteworthy work but has an unremarkable personal life. Our goal is not simply to cover the Kardashians of the planet. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suitcase Clinic[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:NORG level of notability from a quick check and it is almost entirely based off of a University of California, Berkeley student newspaper. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Dwaro, below ~~Delete~~ per WP:NORG. Multiple mentions of varying degree in local papers ([27] [28] [29] [30]). The Academic Medicine article is the only one that appears to provide NORG-level coverage; however, it appears to be written by authors associated with the organization, making it unsuitable for NORG. userdude 03:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a primary subject of articles by independent news sources in https://www.berkeleyside.com/2016/07/12/uc-berkeleys-suitcase-clinic-services-for-the-homeless-life-lessons-for-the-volunteers and https://thestreetspirit.org/2015/04/06/stories-from-the-suitcase-clinic/. The topic has also been explored in an academic journal. https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2001/05000/The_Berkeley_Suitcase_Clinic__Homeless_Services_by.58.aspx. – BriefEdits (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
- ~~Further comment. Therefore these three sources should be able to qualify for WP:ORGDEPTH right? – BriefEdits (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

The Academic Medicine article appears to be written by one of the organizers of the program, making it not independent (per WP:ORGIND). The berkeleyside article is written by a "Guest contributor". ~~The Street Spirit article appears to be valid for NORG.~~ userdude 23:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC); struck per Graywalls (below) 00:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reply @BriefEdits:. #1, no, because "The article originally appeared on Berkeley News, published by UC Berkeley." #2 is a no, because Street Spirit is a local, specialized paper "Street Spirit is an independent newspaper in the East Bay dedicated to covering homelessness and poverty from the perspective of those most impacted". meaning they focus on issues that are about or important to the specific audience in the local area, which means that it fails WP:AUD criterion of NCORP. #3, finally the journal is also a no because ALAN STEINBACH, MD, JOHN SWARTZBERG, MD, AND VERONA CARBONE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment follow up @BriefEdits:, please have a look at their website as well as WP:ORGIND policy which explains what's considered DEPENDENT coverage on Wikipedia:"any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly". I am wondering if you realized Suitcase Clinic is ran by UC Berkeley and the two of the sources you said are independent are related to UC Berkeley at the time you placed your input. Graywalls (talk) 13:49, 25 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) 10:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry for the delay. Upon further consideration, I am comfortable with changing my vote to Delete per the notes mentioned by the other editors. Further research have yielded mentions in other scientific journals but not as a primary subject. – BriefEdits

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:BriefEdits their evaluation. Dwaro (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean you're changing to Delete then? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment @Dwaro:, how did you come to conclude the sources are independent when they're clearly dependent? Graywalls (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Graywalls: @HighKing: Please see my new comment beneath. Dwaro (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is to regional, closely associated with the organization, and also mostly comes from blogs. Non of that passes WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 26 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⁺⁺ 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have looked at some other articles about organizations related to the University of California. More of them have more of less the same issue as this article. I would suggest merging them together, so it can meet the WP:GNG as a single article. This could included Associated Students of the University of California, Bear Transit, University of California Jazz Ensembles, CalTV, California Golden Overtones and maybe more. The new article could be named Organizations related to the University of California or something like that. Dwaro (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Dwaro:,The question earlier to you was not addressed which prompted me to look a bit closer. Your contribution pattern where in 8 or 9 of AfDs, only ones in which I've participated or created, but the timing of your "keep" inputs are so close together that it suggests actual research wasn't done on your part to come up with "keep" input. It seems peculiar that the you and another editor independently concluded incorrectly the same way at the same time.@HighKing: I maintain my position on delete. Opting for merge would encourage the culture of creating a bunch of non-notable thing, then resisting deletion by diverting them to "merge" only after "keep" argument can not be sustainedGraywalls (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graywalls. They might have been close to each other, but I have evaluated the sources of those articles. Even if my viewpoints disagree with the consensus, a discussion happens, which is a good thing. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, no problems arise from keeping articles that are properly sourced. Dwaro (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Vargas Gonzalez[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. ².O.^Boxing 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 20:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX due to not competing in any major competitions or winning any awards. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By definition fails WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) b uidhe 07:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Fables: The Everlasting Sapling[edit]

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

Non-notable indie game. One brief article about its trailer (and two non-independent sources) is not sufficient to support a claim of notability. BilCat (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, technically per myself since the nomination rationale is my PROD rationale :) De-PROD'd by creator with rationale "Important game" - but of course no sources were added to substantiate this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google search turned up numerous RS articles about it. A few below:

Looks good enough to me. Phediuk (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main problem about this one is that the coverage it gets from reliable sources is purely WP:ROUTINE and expected for any video game announced: "to launch", "announced", "set to release", "out today", "comes to a certain platform" and other things, with basic info about the game slightly altered from press releases. That being said, I found a very good source detailing the game's development at Red Bull [31], but that is it sadly. The Gamer seems to be situational leaning to unreliable source per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#THEGAMER, questionably/likely unreliable like Go Nintendo and Nintendo Insider mentioned here and everything else is in lines of the RPS/Destructoid/NLife/GRadar routine sources posted above (also RPGSite, 4Gamer or Video Games Chronicle). That led me to conclusion that this game fails WP:GNG. It may be notable after the consoles release at the end of this month, but not now and at this point of time. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game is significant. -Splinemath (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply asserting significance is meaningless without sources to back it up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or back to draft). I agree with Jovanmilic97, it's WP:CHURNALISM, the same bit of information in slightly different words. There's nothing to go on, really. Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON and move back to draft, so when it gets released it might get some coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has a Metacritic rating that includes two video game reliable sources that complement those provided by Phediuk: RPG Site and Vandal. TheGamer also reviewed it but the WikiProject does not yet have a consensus on their reliability. Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking my vote due to the newfound reference at RPGSite (which appeared after the AfD has started!). That, the Vandal source and Red Bull article should make it for a WP:GNG pass now. Plus, I am positive it will be reviewed by Nintendo Life and/or Nintendo World Report when the game releases on Switch. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached as Keep.-Splinemath (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As expected, more coverage in WP:VG/RS has appeared after the console release, [32], [33], [34] and [35]. Combined with sources above, it now meets WP:GNG without any question. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game has gotten much more exposure thanks to the console release, and the article's pageviews have greatly increased since the beginning of May. More people are interested in the game, so keeping this article is the right thing to do. The Switch version already has amazing reviews. from critics. Condontdoit296 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, article now seems to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, RS bear out notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walmart. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Market (Walmart)[edit]

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

This should be deleted. It is not notable separately from the main Walmart article. Walmart Neighborhood Market already redirects to Walmart Spacemo80 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main Walmart article. Maybe salt also so it can't be recreated under a different name. Although, I'm not solid on that because it possible be notable in the future and I don't want to get in the way of recreation if it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Walmart Neighborhood Market, clearly the same topic and should be redirected in the same way. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NazzKing[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are weak and mostly blogosphere. No evidence of chart success and sources don't seem to confirm claims made for them. Fails WP:SINGER. Possible autobiog. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [36] on the help desk, the article's author refers to the article as "my page". -Arch dude (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that this AfD was accidentally listed twice for some reason. I'm not sure what that would do to voting etc, but I thought id let you know just in case you want to delete the duplicate listing. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - duplicate index entry now removed. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. The awards he is a recipient of are not notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks for all the moderators,editors for their suggestion on improving the article but l would like to state that ,the Awards mentioned in the above Page are very valid and widely recognized in that part of Africa.Let me ask [[User Talk:Versace1608|,is it because the Awards are not Grammy level or MTV level that the Awards should be degraded?Don't Africans get to have their own Awards? with all due respect ,Who are you to term something as notable or not? How comes this artist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Gadam page has literally has been accepted in Wikipedia while having clearly included the awards from the same organisation

, as the person am writing about, yet when l include them and links to support the awards from the same organization as his, it's an issue ?l made changes even removed the "community section" as suggested by User talk:David. I included even more secondary links as you people term it. What is really the criteria for determining which links are secondary while l went and used the links collected from widespread different and many independent platforms.Please don't discriminate my page just because l am an African and we all know everyone has to start from somewhere so not all of us can have MTV,GRAMMY,COLOMBIA MUSIC,SONY MUSIC type of sources, thank you.Ramsey555 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramsey555: First and foremost, there is no discrimination going on here. There are a significant number of Ghanaian and other African musicians with Wikipedia articles. If discrimination was rampant, do you really think these artists will have Wikipedia pages? Please keep in mind that every article on Wikipedia can get nominated for deletion if the nominator (the editor who decides to nominate it) feels it doesn't meet our notability reqirements. After an article gets nominated for deletion, it is up to the community to decide its fate. The Northern Ghana Entertainment Awards does not appear to be notable; I did a Google search and did not see the awards being discussed in reliable sources. I am an African myself and we do have numerous awards; unfortunately, this particular one isn't notable. Fancy Gadam appears to be notable because unlike like NazzKing, he has actually won and been nominated for two notable awards: Vodafone Ghana Music Awards and All Africa Music Awards. I recently nominated the Fancy Gadam article for deletion but the community reached a consensus to keep it. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Awards are local, and not enough to determine notability. Become famous first, then write a Wikipedia article, not the other way round. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentthen why is it we have people whose pages have been accepted in Wikipedia yet they have received the same Organization that gives the awards??l have even linked above(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Gadam ) a Wikipedia profile that has accepted in this platform,yet they have awards from the same source as the subject being written about, biases maybe??Ramsey555 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramsey555: Fancy Gadam has a Wikipedia page because he appears to meet some criterion outlined in WP:MUSICBIO, not because he is a recipient of the same awards NazzKing received. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::@Versace1608: please help me and tell me exactly what needs to be done for NazzKing page to meet those guidelines?As you can see am putting a lot of effort to improve the articleRamsey555 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Yeah! (Tiësto & Showtek song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Sources are links to two videos, and a source that celebrates four years since the song was released, and provides another link to the video, without any indication that the song is notable. The claims of marking changes in style for both artists are not stated anywhere in the claimed source, this is pure OR. Never charted anywhere and I can't find any in-depth reliable sources. Both artists are notable, so per WP:XY there is no obvious redirect target. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nom's analysis, there is no evidence of notability and no obvious redirect target. Ingratis (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same thoughts with similar AfD. Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: why would you keep it if there are no good sources, and where would you redirect it to if there are two equally notable artists? Richard3120 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I said keep OR redirect. Redirect to Tiesto, or flip a coin. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you did, I was asking your reasoning for each case. Showtek is an equally valid redirect target, hence WP:XY is the issue here. Richard3120 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Tiesto is more prominent than Showtek. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need feminism because[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Source 5 does not mention the movement at all; source 3 is a reprint of a Facebook post; sources 1 and 2 are not independent of the topic, seeing as though they are from the institution that the movement originated in. That leaves only source 4, which is mentioned with reverence within the article (The Boston Globe, the region's largest newspaper, even covered the campaign in December 2016). Coverage by major sources should be standard for topics covered on Wikipedia, not an added bonus. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parker's Red Pen (talk • contribs) 23:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect? The article states that this was started at Boston University in 2016, but according to Who Needs Feminism, the "I need feminism because" social-media campaign started at Duke in 2012. It seems possible that a campaign or campaigns using the "I need feminism because" language are notable or that "I need feminism because" is a notable slogan, but I don't think we need to have separate articles on various manifestations of it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying but there's no proven connection between the two movements, it seemed like 2016 US presidential election was the lone catalyst for this one. I don't think there's anything of substance to merge to the original; this one never made it internationally like the Duke one did, and I could easily sell my own branded sporting equipment. While a couple sources have been added since I initially nominated, the only SIGCOV is still from local sources. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that there's a connection between the movements (unless someone indicates somewhere that the MA campaign was inspired by an earlier one, I'd believe they came up with it independently, or at least thought they did) so much as floating the idea that the phrase, or the idea of a social media campaign about why people need feminism, is maybe more notable than a specific campaign that uses it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misinterpretation. I do agree that a general movement page is a lot better than two specific ones. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these suggestions I have moved all of this content under the "Spread" section of the Who Needs Feminism page. Thanks for all of the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve42382 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, Articles for Deletion discussions should run a minimum of one week before any proposed outcomes are acted upon. Additionally, there are issues with the current content (specifically tone issues) that should not be merged, if in fact the discussion results in a merge. Thank you for the willingness to do the merge, but we have to wait a week first. Don't forget to sign your posts on talk and discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~) at the end! Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to wait for an AfD to close to edit an article not subject to the AfD, or indeed to edit the article that is subject to the AfD. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user was trying to implement the “merge” outcome before consensus was made. Not trying to limit editing on pages but trying to wait for consensus on outcomes. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG. Specifically the topic has not received significant coverage. There were a handful of short human interest stories in the local Boston press in 2016, then nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass notability standards, and is promotional. Natureium (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and failed WP:GNG but way be appropriate for a passing mention in another more relevant, not orphan articles Ed6767 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat related question: Before I pull the AfD trigger, does anyone have an opinion as to whether the Who Needs Feminism page should be listed for deletion as well? That page has a bit better sourcing than this one (The Christian Science Monitor) but appears to have many of the same issues this one has; a handful of short human interest stories between 2012 and 2014, then nothing. Note: the citation to The Guardian in that article appears to be about Altrincham Grammar School for Girls, not Duke University. If the Who Needs Feminism page and I need feminism because pages are both deleted, is there a logical article where we can mention these movements, on the assumption that they don't meet the requirements for standalone articles but do meet the requirements for a paragraph or two in an existing article? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider the other article to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FledgeWing[edit]

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:10, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2009 AfD was closed no-consensus on the basis of 2 references added by the article creator; neither site still exists but they appear to have been typical start-up announcement coverage, which would not now be considered. I am seeing very little trace of this service, beyond occasional listings; nothing to indicate WP:NCORP/WP:NWEB notability was attained. AllyD (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it puzzling when it was first nominated around a decade ago. Why was it closed as no consensus in the first place if majority voted to delete it? 2 delete votes indicated there are strong enough. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WeRead[edit]

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth coverage required for notability and everything about it in the article is extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 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 merge to The Furniture Society. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Award of Distinction[edit]

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

The references are too slight for WP:GNG. A list of recipients of the award is not the same as coverage about it. There does not appear to be a single independent source discussing the importance of the award. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst, merge and redirect to The Furniture Society. Yes, the referencing is thin, but it appears to be a major award in the field. Fine Woodworking describes it "one of furniture-making’s highest honors", Woodworking Network says it is "coveted". SpinningSpark 17:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Furniture Society. Sourcing is a bit thin, but this isn't a vanity award that just about anyone can win who's willing to pay. Its recipients are significant in their field. Vexations (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several sources to this page to add to to its verifiability and notability. Several articles are in their entirety dedicated to announcing the receipients of the award that year and are from third party sources such as this article from Woodshop News. However, I do also think this article needs more sources covering the award itself and I would support redirecting this article to The Furniture Society as another option. Terasaface (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As another option - could we re-name the page to differentiate it from other awards of the same name? Terasaface (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commonground (social network)[edit]

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

Not a notable website Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth coverage required for notability and everything about it in the article is extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is dreadful, but the organisation is quite big and well known. I dont think we should give up on it too easily. Rathfelder (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references and sources provided do not establish notability. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LaiBhaari[edit]

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

This was not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth coverage in multiple sources required for notability and everything about it in the article is extremely trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing exists online about this. No notablity, no coverage. Drat8sub (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wepolls.com[edit]

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

This was not a notable website. The references are not directly about the site, just mentioned in passing regarding a broader topic Wikieditor600 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons in nomination JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have the reliable in-depth secondary coverage in multiple reliable sources required for notability. The sources it does have only mention it in passing. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing the start-up financing and proposition of a defunct service, referenced to primary sources and passing coverage. My searches are not finding WP:RS coverage of the service or its passing; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 23:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie, Margravine of Baden[edit]

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

The subject is a private individual with no significant coverage in reliable sources. This is a purely genealogical entry but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the amount of articles we have on people who claim titles that have no authority or power is borderng on the absurd. It probably is not a major contribution to our almost having 1 million aticles on living people, since these people are dwarfed by non-notable beauty queens, not notable criketeers and footballers, and proably non-notable writers, but it is still one of the components.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Members of formerly reigning houses may be notable (not necessarily, but possibly), but a purely genealogical article doesn't make the case for notability. And there is nothing here but genealogy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability evident. Anything here could be easily found in the Almanach de Gotha or various websites. - dwc lr (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to World Youth Day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xt3[edit]

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

This was not a notable website. Sources are not reliable; mostly sources with a connection to the subject Wikieditor600 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into World Youth Day after condensing into two or three sentences. Meticulo (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into the suggested merge target above. Merging seems reasonable to me. Since there is content and sources about the subject, but not enough for an individual article IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 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 delete. BD2412 T 23:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary von Habsburg[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. The sources cited, absurdly unreliable, only mention her in passing. There is no mention of any "controversy". Her husband is a private citizen who happens to be a third cousin of the head of a deposed dynasty, so I imagine nobody even cared. But most importantly, the subject herself is a private individual and reliable sources seem to have no interest in her. Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable. The dude she married isn't even notable enough for an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if she married into a roayl family that had any real power, than maybe she would be notable. They don't have any power, so there is no notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. Borderline tabloid journalism. Glendoremus (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomit & Rebbesoul[edit]

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

Not notable. Possible COI. Fuddle (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is a close call but there is not quite enough significant coverage as a group to get over the hurdles at WP:NBAND, even #6 concerning multiple notable members. This duo has two notable members, Shlomit Levi and RebbeSoul, and as a duo they got some brief concert reviews/announcements ([37], [38]). Even that coverage dwells on the fact that they were both established previously, and I can find nothing reliable that focuses on the duo's work in its own right, and I can find only one single-paragraph review of their album ([39]). Also, it looks like the article was created by one of the members. That is not necessarily a reason to delete if the group is notable... but unfortunately I don't think they are. The duo's existence can be mentioned at each of their individual articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess María of Austria (b. 1967)[edit]

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

I was able to find some sources discussing her husband (bare minimum though) but nothing about her. The content of the article indicates that she is only noteworthy from a genealogical point of view, but Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holding a title with no power does not make one notable. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a geneological database, articles like this make it such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Members of formerly reigning houses may be notable (not necessarily, but possibly), but a purely genealogical article doesn't make the case for notability. And there is nothing here but genealogy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and these types of articles are prone to false information being inserted unnoticed [40]. The sort of websites that could be cited readily and easily by anyone (like some in this article) are not Wikipedia Reliable Sources. - dwc lr (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gothic language#J. R. R. Tolkien. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taliska[edit]

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

Fictional language. I'm not finding enough significant coverage of this language to demonstrate a GNG pass. The three sources in the article are a primary source, a podcast of indeterminate reliability, and a piece referring to a presentation at a fan conference. In other findable sources, [41] describes the language in several paragraphs, but only in the context of Tolkien's legendarium. [42] also is only focused on the fictional history and relation to other forms of Elvish. I'm not finding anything that discusses Taliska in an out-of-universe perspective. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien § Mannish languages This is a valid search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien § Mannish languages I agree with the previous user. Ibn Daud (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, not much I can say except I also don't see any more RS coverage of this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect for the reasons mentioned above, but my only concern is, unless I am missing something, the term Taliska does not appear in the redirect target suggested above? Compare this with Adûnaic#Fictional history or Gothic_language#J._R._R._Tolkien, where the term was actually mentioned. --Dps04 (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gothic_language#J._R._R._Tolkien, the only place where there is a sourced mention. b uidhe 08:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heliolevidea[edit]

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

Critical Existence Failure; I can't find any indication that this species exists. Provided sources (those that are accessible) do not mention it (and some are a little bizarre - see this one), no database contains heliolevidea as a species of Gleba, and even a blank web search on the word comes up empty. Quite a feat on today's internet. Image is "own work", but without any of the background information that would usually accompany what is apparently meant to be a high-tech underwater photo. This looks like either a hoax or something so hot off the press that it is completely undocumented. I have my doubts about opisthobranchs using light signatures to drive social recognition, and supect the former. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable. Gleba appears to have one member, Gleba cordata. Nothing comes up on a search for Heliolevidea, a name which seems suspect ("Hell of an idea"?). The upload File:Heliolevidea.jpg claims this is a first encounter (2019) and own work by User:Uliana Reu who created this page, maybe it should be deleted as well.--Eostrix (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't access all sources in article, but WoRMS and ITIS confirm that cordata is the only accepted species in Gleba, and none of the deprecated congenerics are named heliolevidea (which I would interpret as "sun-lifting", as in "holding up a light"). A reverse image search finds no other copies of this picture online, so it's possible that this is a real species being described in a manuscript somewhere rather than a hoax (cf. the strange first-person speculation about social recognition), but even if so this article would have to wait for that manuscript to be published. FourViolas (talk) 19:13, 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! 22:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Carrozzo[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography on a non-notable person. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG (sources seem to just have passing mentions). Adam9007 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in terms of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Also note that a version of this article with the same sources was rejected at Draft:Francesco Carrozzo. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are these reliable sources? Are not discog, IMBD, published websites not enough to become reliable sources ?

Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb explains this better than could. IMDb may be okay as an external link, but it's not considered a reliable source because basically anyone can just put anything there. Adam9007 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What websites are reliable sources then since it's 2020 and nobody writes many books about sound engineers anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, reliable means that the source has a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking. What websites are and aren't reliable can be controversial, especially for BLPs. See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. Adam9007 (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless of articles with "too close to the subject" websites and imbds that are up and going and no other references, why are we making an exception to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are millions of articles and only several thousand editors so sometimes articles just just haven't been flagged yet and they could also stand to be deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what sources are lacking of credibility and where the article is promoting the subject. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serotonine69 Lets go through the sources, which Liance told you were not reliable over a month ago at the draft bvefore you decided to try to game the system. Both The Odyssey Online and Medium (sources 1 & 2) are self-publishing blog sites so definitely do not indicate notability; Both IMDB and Discogs (3, 4, 6 & 7) are crowd-sourced, user-generated sites so also do not indicate notability; that leaves us with the Hear Up article (5), which is A) not reliable as it is also a self-publishing site and B) an interview and generally interviews do not count towards notability. Also it is written by an admitted PR agent and SEO writer so clearly also a paid piece. I am going to ask you to disclose your relationship with Carrozzo per WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor inspired and amazed by the accomplishments Carrozzo's had even by been an influential professional on The Game new record and thought it was someone worth an article on here since his contribution to the record as a sound mixer. I do not know him in person nor I am I affiliated with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serotonine69 and you just happened to have a copy of his professional headshot on hand? You list it as an own work and if you did take the photo you would almost certainly have to known the subject on some level. GPL93 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you can find this same headshot on his Instagram and his websites/imbds :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serotonine69 If it is not you own work like you declared then it needs to be deleted as a copyright violation. GPL93 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok I've deleted it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serotonine69 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A biography on a non-notable person, with poor sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdlp10 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 11:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Laboratories[edit]

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

Non-notable academic building. One of several de-prodded without reason by User:Another Believer. User:Namiba 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. Not every building on a university campus needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. Totally agree that not every building on a campus needs an article. Especially these days with Wikidata. It was probably originally created as part of the The University of Texas at Austin template. Which will now have a red link, but such is life. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings.Djflem (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 11:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art Building (University of Texas at Austin)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic building. One of several de-prodded without reason by User:Another Believer. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. Not every building on a university campus needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. It doesn't seem notable and I totally agree with the sentiment above about articles for random university buildings. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings.Djflem (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 11:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable academic building. One of several de-prodded without reason by User:Another Believer. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings. Not every building on a university campus needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of University of Texas at Austin buildings.Djflem (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 08:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Garba[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, or the first woman officer, but going beyond this into various ranks is getting indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first woman to be promoted to the most senior NCO rank in a service 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) 14:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the postion is not inhernetly notable we need lots of coverage to show notability, not just hand waving that they are the "first x to do y".John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 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) 03:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep -- going through a glass ceiling in a particular profession is a notable event, and in this case the individual is clearly well covered by the press, Sadads (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Necrothesp and Sadads; subject meets our notability for inclusion. Kaizenify (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Or at any rate do not delete; a potential merger can still be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 09:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arab–Iranian conflict[edit]

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

The article lists 1979 Khuzestan uprising, Iran-Iraq War and Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict as part of single conflict that started in 1979 (which also surprisingly links to a 7th century as background), while these conflicts are not connected to each-other. In other words, it is simply material combined from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It is subject to 6th criteria for deletion and I suggest a redirect to Arab League–Iran relations. Pahlevun (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 23:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 23:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 23:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate subject covered in multiple books, as one can easily check by search [43], including even books on the origin of the conflict [44]. What needs to be included to the page should be defined by the sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I appreciate the GBooks link from MVBW, but these sources appear to be variously using the term to refer to an Arab-Iranian conflict that various actors do or do not wish to develop, to conflicts that pre-date (and therefore cannot predict) all or most of the conflicts listed here, or in other ways to specific conflicts rather than to an overarching war a la Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am inclined to say that this is a generic term. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, this is very specific, well known and significant conflict, according to the books. For example, a summary to one of them (link in my comment above) tells:

The geopolitical rivalry between the Gulf Arab states and Iran has its origins in the interwar period, the period between the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 which marked the end of the First World War until 1941 when the Persian Gulf became a theatre of the Second World War. The interwar period was a formative period because it marked a transition from a Gulf society characterized by symbiosis and interdependency to a sub-region characterized by national divisions, sectarian suspicions, rivalries and political tension. The introduction of Iranian nationalism to the Persian Gulf waterway, islands and littoral and the unprecedented interventions of the British government in the Arab shaykhdoms including Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah, constituted a watershed in the history of the Persian Gulf, disrupted centuries of unrestricted movement, refashioned frameworks of exchange between the two shores and forged an acute Arab-Iranian dichotomy that would characterize the Persian Gulf into the twenty-first century

My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I was going to address the Mueller source and I forgot. I agree that this source unquestionably identifies these various conflicts as part of a larger one, but this, while coming from a reliable source, does appear to be one person's analysis of the conflict. I think this could be handled by noting in the Arab League-Iran relations article that "Chelsi Mueller analyzes these things as part of a broader Arab-Iranian conflict..." Unless - are there other sources that likewise talk about these things as manifestations of a single conflict, even if they don't use the term "Arab-Iranian conflict"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How come? Dozens books in the search do use term "Arab-Iranian conflict", and many of them tell this specific conflict is important: [45], [46], [47]. Yes, as one of them say, the Palestinian National Authority considers this conflict non-existent for political reasons [48], but this is just an additional reason that makes this conflict notable and justifies having this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the sources I was referring to when I noted earlier that the term is used generically. The first of these sources identifies conflicts in the 300s CE as part of an Arab-Iranian conflict, the second source is a government document from 1973 that obviously can't be speaking of the late 1970s, 1980s, and beyond events that the article discusses, and the third refers to a specific manifestation that it even notes arose in the 2000s. I think you would need much better sourcing to claim that these things represent a single conflict rather than a bunch of authors using the same phrase for different things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A disagreement of sources what exactly constitutes the topic (time frame of the conflict, exact list of countries involved, etc.) does not invalidate any subject. Consider definition of terrorism. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's begging the question - there has to be a subject to begin with. I also don't think you're making a very strong case that this is a different subject from the general topic of Arab League-Iran relations, if you do indeed accept that no one has the same definition or scope of this "conflict". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you do not like books, there are many other scholarly sources on this subject. For example, that one tells: The eight-year war between Iran and Iraq (1980–1988) brought to light the Arab–Iranian conflict, and the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 thrust it onto centre stage of the region’s dynamics.. The concept (see also Modern usage of al-Qādisiyyah) was widely used for propaganda. For example, this scholarly source tells that The Baʿthi regime stressed that animosity between Arabs and Persians stretched back to the farthest reaches of ancient history. A radio propaganda campaign aimed at Arabs living inside Iran reminded them that: ‘[f]rom the dawn of history [Persians] have been, and still are, conspiring and plotting against the Arabs’. I am not making a judgement if this is a valid historical concept or a concept misused for propaganda. I am just saying this subject/concept has been covered in a significant number of books and scholarly articles. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the most important issues in Asia and the Middle East. You can read about it in Persian and Arabic books. In my opinion, keep the article. Lexy iris (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Arab League–Iran relations, we would need stronger sources that the conflict actually exists and is not just one way of characterizing the relations. As it stands, I think this issue could be better covered in the relations article. b uidhe 08:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugely important issue. Wikipedia has some issues of lacking extensive referencing to Non-Latin script based sources, this article needs to be expanded.★Trekker (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear, after much-extended time for discussion. I have redirected the title to the supertopic, Pullman Hotels and Resorts. BD2412 T 23:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pullman London St Pancras[edit]

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

Not a notable hotel Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some reviews and references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The new sources included are nothing short of hotel reviews, nothing significantly covered by secondary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ajf773. The added sources do not demonstrate notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. - Flori4nKT A L K 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hotel reviews don't cut it unfortunately and there doesn't seem to be much else out there that can establish notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:06, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point-Afrique[edit]

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

Not notable. Only operated for a few months and not mentioned by reliable sources Wikieditor600 (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 23:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 23:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. A lot of inaccurate information in the article in its current form, it was definitely not a short-lived charter airline that existed only for a few months. It was founded in 1995 and continues to this day. The website is currently online. I don't speak French, but there is considerable information about the organization contained in the French Wikipedia article of fr:Maurice_Freund (the founder). People with access to French language sources are likely to be able to turn up additional information. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are mistaken with another airline. This one last a few months. The website is now owned by a 4x4 company.Wikieditor600 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 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⁺⁺ 14:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking in-depth coverage to establish notability. Short lived charter airlines are a dime a dozen. It's extremely hard for one to be notable for anything within such a short time period and Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 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. – bradv🍁 06:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Designer[edit]

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

REFUNDed PROD. Original reason for deletion was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement." and the article has not been improved since it was recreated. It is still referenced, and fails to offer any claims on why it it is notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (nn; found no SIGCOV). - Flori4nKT A L K 16:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously lacks notability. If there was a way to improve it, it probably would have happened after the refund.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant (talk • contribs) 107:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Refunded at [49] as possible merge with Allycad at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AllyCAD though given what came back I'd wished I'd refunded to draft. South African developed Autodesk competitor and South Africa appears to have been primary market. I would have said AllyCAD was the more notable due to the educational training use, or claimed use, and I added a source to that article about it which was binned. Believe this was used in several major projects, but, most references are primary claims by software producer, who now also stewards AllyCad probably from the Lawless. There is probably an article here, but the main zone is South Africa and the company behind the product have mostly press releases left online; Anything better has probably WP:LINKROTted. I dispute the snide original unsigned comment If there was a way to improve it, it probably would have happened after the refund as per the diff the hope was more for a merge to AllyCAD; and I have quite other RL and WP articles to go round. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:31, 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 merge to Club de Tenis Puente Romano. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Puente Romano[edit]

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

Like it is currently described a usual hotel in Marbella, Spain, nothing extraordinary. Only Reference is a tourist guide entry. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect to Club de Tenis Puente Romano. Per nom, while this is undoubtedly a very swanky hotel, it doesn't appear to meet the WP:CORP or WP:GNG guidelines on its own. A news/book search suggests that the two main "claims to notability" are that the hotel (and its facilities) is used as a base by famous people. And that it has an ancient Roman bridge on its grounds. On the former, I would note that notability isn't inherited (otherwise, every hotel that ever hosted a famous guest would have its own entry). And that stuff could be covered in the Club de Tenis Puente Romano article anyway. And, on the latter, if that bridge is notable as a cultural heritage or national heritage or protected structure, then it should have its own article. And any notes on the hotel/environment be covered there. Rather than the other way around. Otherwise, per nom, we have an otherwise ROTM entry with no indication of notability. Acting, as has been the case over the years, only as a magnet for promotional/advertising guff. Guliolopez (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Club de Tenis Puente Romano and have a paragraph on the hotel there.† Encyclopædius 07:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and above --Cornellier (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nish (musician)[edit]

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

This article uses twitter, instagram, youtube and some other tribial mentions as references. I think these are not WP:RS. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he seems to have been featured quite a lot on the BBC which would suggest he is notable. Also as the nominator is the creator of the article can I ask you what has led you to change your mind about him? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been on Wikipedia for quite a while, and I created this article early on. I believe it is hypocritical for me to have poorly-written and poorly-sourced articles since I have agreed with deletions of similar articles. Nevertheless, I will most likely create a new article on this individual as time passes and he becomes more notable. At the moment, the only really reliable sources are the BBC and not really anything else. UserNumber (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L7-filter[edit]

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

Not-so-well-known internet filter whose notability/importance is not proven anywhere in the article. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a couple of book sources to the article, one with a chapter on L7. The other book has just a paragraph, so we'd need another in-depth source for notability. There is verifiability if we can identify a good merge target.--{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 11:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–2020 United States flu season[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. If this becomes notable, we can create the article at that time. Natureium (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For context, there's some precedent in 2012–2013 flu season and 2017–2018 United States flu season, but I'm not sure that's enough, since there are no articles for other years, and the ones for those years should perhaps be merged elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: When I put this up I was thinking that this article would be an interesting contrast to the coronavirus pandemic which was just getting started in the US. I also didn't realize there wasn't a similar article for every year. But maybe you are right, and if each of the articles about each year's flu season is not too long, it would be better to merge them into one article called "Seasonal flu in the United States" or somehing like that. However, I do not think it should be deleted completely. DaringDonna (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my only worry with this article is that it may be used to pedle misinformation about COVID-19, I believe that some of the early conspiracy theories (or similar attempts at misinformation) in the united states, focused on the novel caronovirus being less deadly then the common flu. But the article could still be noteworthy depending on this years impact. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address Epluribusunumyall's comment above. Because of the catastrophic nature of the coronavirus pandemic--as of this writing over 100,000 people in the US have died from this deadly virus--it is important that people be able to compare this pandemic with the 2019-2020 flu season, which, even though it was considered a bad year for seasonal flu, only killed a tiny fraction of what COVID has, and tragically will. This information should be easily available to anyone who has such a question or concern. DaringDonna (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. From what it looks, the Flu season was unusually bad and credible sources exist for it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable sources exist and the topic would seem as notable as e.g. hurricane seasons, for which we have articles 209.171.88.174 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets GNG per review of available sources. A notable public health event and of sufficient interest to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does meet WP:GNG and it is notable, especially in context of other pandemics. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eat-the-World[edit]

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

Not notable. Sources are review sites and promotional Wikieditor600 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Pitu, Lavinia (2014-01-02). "Eating Berlin: On tour through the city's belly". Deutsche Welle. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
2. Wagner, Charlotte (2020-02-14). "So war's bei der neuen Stadtteilführung von Eat the World in der Freiburger Wiehre" [That's how it was with the new district tour of Eat the World in Freiburg's Wiehre]. Badische Zeitung (in German). Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
3. Kalwa, Eva (2010-06-08). "Berlin geht durch den Magen: „Eat the World": Kulinarische Stadtführungen bieten internationale Kostproben und Kiezgeschichten in Friedrichshain und Neukölln" [Berlin goes through the stomach: "Eat the World": Culinary city tours offer international tastings and neighborhood stories in Friedrichshain and Neukölln.]. Der Tagesspiegel (in German). Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
4. Somborn, Nora (2010-03-11). "Der Geschmack der Schanze" [The taste of the hill]. Der Spiegel (in German). Archived from the original on 2015-09-20. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
5. Kreller, Anika (2012-06-12). "Eat the World: Elke Freimuth organisiert kulinarische Stadtteilführungen" [Eat the World: Elke Freimuth organizes culinary tours of the district.]. Der Tagesspiegel (in German). Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
6. Müller-Kroll, Monika (2013-04-09). "'Eat The World' Explores Friedrichshain Through Food". NPR Berlin. Archived from the original on 2016-05-15. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
7. Müller, Stefanie (2019-10-09). "Eat the World Tour: Kulinarische Stadtführung: So gut schmeckt Ulm" [Eat the World Tour Culinary city tour: Ulm tastes so good]. Südwest Presse (in German). Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
8. Spätling, Johannes (2019-10-01). "„Eat the World-Tour" Eigelstein in kulinarischer und knackiger Form" ["Eat the World Tour" Eigelstein in culinary and crisp form]. Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger (in German). Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
9. Sommer, Karla (2019-11-15). "Erstmals gab es einen "Eat the Word"-Rundgang in der Altstadt" [For the first time there was an "Eat the Word" tour in the old town]. Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eat-the-World to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references above and in the article all fail WP:ORGIND. Most are reviews of one of the tours and almost none provide any information about the actual company which is the actual topic of the article. Of those few references that provide information on the company, that information is provided directly by a tour guide or founder. References fail to provide in-depth significant Independent Content on the company, topic fails WP:GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources don't even discuss the company itself. So, it lacks in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 11:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Lisa Murkowski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Political positions of Lisa Murkowski (2nd nomination)

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

Wikipedia:NOTPROMOTION BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Follows the precedent of creating a separate article for a politician's political positions when the section becomes unruly. — Informant16 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back/undo split Split from Lisa Murkowski was not discussed and unnecessary. While the article was long, what remains there is a mere 8,400 characters of prose. It doesn't make sense to split off the bulk of the article and all of its most relevant content, leaving something relatively short and less informative behind (much of the length is now the electoral history boxes). If the original section was "unruly", doesn't this merely force readers to go to a separate page that's equally "unruly"? An option when something is "unruly" is to trim the excess deatils, like the many listings of bills she cosponsored (rather than sponsored) – it's been over 3,400 such bills – or other stuff that's years of specific news bits rather than what she in particular has had influence on. Another option is to reorganize so there's a "Tenure" section with actions taken that aren't so much political positions. And if you are going to split something, for goodness's sake, please use WP:Summary style (per Wikipedia:Splitting#Step 6: Clean_up!) so the main article isn't just devoid of all of this relevant content! Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Jesus Christ. I am not opposed to writing a summary for her political positions section with a link, as I did with the Susan Collins article. Problem is, within minutes of me splitting it, before I can even write a summary, I get a notification for this deletion request. Why would I write an edit summary that might get yanked in a span of a few days depending on how the votes go for this? It was "unnecessary" to split it even though I can give over twenty examples of the exact same thing being done for other senators on this very site, with less than a 1/8 of those instances being myself. You complain that the split "was not discussed" as though that's an obligation of editors. Trevdna split content on the Mitch McConnell article without consensus and there wasn't a single deletion request on Political positions of Mitch McConnell. So when someone else splits an article, it doesn't get contested; only when I do it. Informant16 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree this was a very, very poor AFD. Obviously describing positions is not prohibited promotion and the content should not be deleted outright. This is most definitely not directed at you, it just happens to be what people saw first. I’m sorry I didn’t heed the time stamps and did not consider that a summary style may be forthcoming. I don’t think the McConnell article is the best comparison though since it is still very long without the split, while this one is much shorter with respect to biographical info. Just because some pages are split doesn’t mean it needs to be done for others. Reywas92^Talk 09:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, currently, this article is 145k bytes long, essentially all of it sourced to reliable sources. If merged back to the main Lisa Murkowski article, that article would simply be too long. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentle reminder that readable prose length, not total article size, applies for the splitting rule of thumb. While the original article was yes a reasonably long 85k, splitting it to be a short 8k main article and a long 77k subarticle is a poor solution if that’s the only consideration. Reywas92^Talk 10:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, (I actually didn’t know how to view prose byte sizes before now, so apologies for that), But I still do feel that if 77k bytes is devoted to a long list of political positions, and only 8k is devoted to everything else, that’s a really unbalanced article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Comment’’’ My action has been cited for precedent so I thought I’d weigh in real quick. When I split Mitch McConnell, I purposely tried to only include sections where McConnell specifically took a position. It seems like there’s a lot in Murkowski’s current “positions” article that could remain in the main article under “Tenure”, such as Supreme Court Nominations. The line is fuzzy sometimes, but I think there’s a difference between taking a position on a long term issue such as gun control, and opposing/supporting individuals. If more of that material is kept in the main body of the article, it may help resolve this conflict. -Trevdna (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and get under control. There is no reason to split the biographical article at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other Senators have similar articles. I don't see how this is any different. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, it isn't promotion. And it seems very long to me as a reader, though I suppose some info could be cut. Dleit Ḵaa (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability and does not appear promotional.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Purdue Boilermakers#Non-varsity sports. Merge is needed because there is no mention in target. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 11:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue Crew[edit]

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

Non-notable student organization. User:Namiba 19:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with very small merge to Purdue_Boilermakers#Non-varsity_sports. Almost entirely internal club stuff only of interest to members, not independently covered. Reywas92^Talk 21:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect as the page WP:HASPOT but needs more independently covered articles. WP:GNG with notable athletes including gold medalists. Suggest editor give time frame of when content can be edited to be supported by other independent coverage. Bioforce12 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show that independent, reliable, and in-depth sources exist? If not, I don't see any potential.--User:Namiba 15:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After some in depth online research it does not seem like there is support for the notability of Purdue Crew as per WP:ORGCRITE however many of Purdue sports accomplishments are located on the university page Purdue_Boilermakers#Non-varsity_sports. I believe it is reasonable to redirect the currently article to Purdue_Boilermakers#Non-varsity_sports. Bioforce12 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Purdue boilermakers non-varsity sports section. Not even all varsity teams are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Binghamton University. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 11:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Association at Binghamton University[edit]

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

Non-notable student organization. User:Namiba 19:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Binghamton University. While it doesn't seem notable enough for an individual article, it might still be worth mentioning in the main Binghamton University article. Which already has a section about student associations that it can go into. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 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 To draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambovent[edit]

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

Cutting-edge and admirable effort, alright, but I'm not seeing how this clears any applicable notability threshold at this time. Relevant sourcing appears to consist of one newspaper article. I suspect a mention may be gainfully inserted in one of the existing COVID/medical articles (I do not have any overview there, sorry); otherwise, WP:TOOSOON. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:24, 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 12:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. There are some possibilities in terms of sources—Jerusalem Post, Bloomberg—but absent an effort to work these into the article, this can't be kept as is. BD2412 T 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn as there is agreement in the discussion to merge this (and other articles) to an article about the decade instead. Fram (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1917 Temple Owls football team[edit]

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

Lacks notability. No independent sources available (in the article or online). This "season" consists of one game played between the senior team and junior team of this college. The template on the right side ("1917 Eastern college football independents records") doesn't even mention the team, for what it's worth. Fram (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was created less than eight hours ago and is a work in progress. I will be expanding it today. It concerns the Temple Owls football program which is a Division I FBS program. Cbl62 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a Division I FBS program now. It was an independent college program then, playing one game against a team from the same college. Notability is not inherited, and the notability of the current program and team doesn't automatically make the older team notable. As for "work in progress", you created more than 20 such "teams" articles today alone, 17 or so yesterday, 8 the day before this, ... It doesn't look as if these are "works in progress", these are rapid-fire mass creations, and waiting until some uncertain date when you may continue editing them is not really how we normally treat new pages. Fram (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Division I FBS programs receive extensive coverage and interest both for their current seasons and for their histories. Cbl62 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have no problem showing us that "extensive coverage" of the 1917 season, and this can soon be closed. Fram (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working at it as we speak! Cbl62 (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I respect your opinion but hope you will reconsider your position on this one. Yesterday, I began a process of improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Temple Owls football program. Additional articles will be rolled out today with incremental efforts to improve them in the days ahead. Cheers. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Temple Owls football#Early history per WP:NSEASONS. The team played one game, against what was basically it's JV squad. Nothing significant here, and Temple wasn't an early football history power. A sentence stating that the 1917 season was mostly cancelled can be added to the Temple Owls football page if desired. Hog Farm (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have reformulated the article to cover Temple football during World War I. This includes the 1917 season in which six games were forfeited due to manpower shortages caused by the war and the four following seasons in which the program did not field a team. This is a reasonable approach as part of the WikiProject College Football's efforts to build out our historic coverage of Division I FBS (i.e., highest level) football programs. I have added some sourcing including this from the Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger. For an article that is now 9 hours old, this is taking good shape IMO and should be saved. Cbl62 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re-purposed article per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the re-purposed article per Cbl62's work. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent work, as per usual, by Cbl62. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new article. The topic of Temple football in WW1 appears to be notable, and it's much improved over the single-season article. Hog Farm (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is very bad form to simply repurpose and retitle an article during an AfD, "While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts." (WP:AFDEQ). Furthermore, there are no independent sources actually discussing this topic either. Looking at the 8 sources now in the article, we have four primary sources (the "2019 Temple Owls Football Media Guide" and "Temple University: 125 Years of Service to Philadelphia, the Nation, and the World." are both published by Temple University, and both used twice), two local articles from 1917 which were already present in the article before it was repurposed anyway, (one announcing the first annulation, and one announcing the complete end of the never-started season), an article on the coach with one line about Temple[50], again about 1917 only, and another article, again about the coach, again with one line about Temple in 1917[51].
Basically, there is nothing more about Temple in 1917 than was here at the start of the AfD, and nothing at all about Temple in 1918-1922, which is the supposed added scope of this article. I have no idea what the "excellent work" is that others see here, I have no idea where the promised "extensive coverage" is supposed to be as it is still completely missing, and the again repeated "Division I" red herring is still not applicable per our notability rules. I have no idea why these cosmetic changes have convinced the others, but basically this still is an empty box pretending to be a well-sourced article, but without a single independent source about the years after 1917, and local routine coverage or extremely passing mentions for 1917. Fram (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Season articles for top-level schools in college football are typically kept (see discussion at essay WP:CFBSEASON). Sometimes season articles are grouped based on logical arrangements such as by coach, by decade, or by a noteworthy event. This article is an example of an excellent start and I look forward to watching its further development. But even as it stands now, it seems to be a good pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I had originally typed keep but then read Fram's comment above and then went back and re-checked things. I'm not actually sure this season is notable in spite of the sourcing - hell, it wasn't even played! There's only really one article on the season itself. This'll probably be incorrectly kept based on the discussion but there's a better WP:ATD available to us which would immediately improve the encyclopaedia. Per the improvement and looking at surrounding seasons, I'd take this a step further and make a 1910s decade-based article for the Temple football team. We get to keep the improved bits of this article, which are good, but unfortunately don't show notability. You could easily send 1915 and 1916 to the AfD chopper yesterday, but the 1914 article looks good. Combining all four of these would be an easy keep. Maybe just keep this for now and then merge? SportingFlyer T·C 01:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Funny you say that, I was having the same thought earlier today. Having dug deeper on the 1910s Temple teams, I actually reached the same conclusion -- that the Temple teams of the 1910s may be better suited to a decade article. But @Fram: already got irritated when I reformulated this once; if he's cool with withdrawing the AfD, I will bundle these into a 1910s decade article, leaving redirects behind for the 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917 seasons. Cbl62 (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created Temple Owls football, 1910–19 which could potentially serve as a host for the content currently under discussion. I am fine with either (a) allowing the current AfD to run its course and abiding by the outcome, or (b) if Fram agrees to withdraw of the AfD, I could then merge the existing content into the decade article -- unless other "Keep" editors strongly object to this outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that seems like a much better solution than the first attempt (not that it wasn't made in good faith, but, well, I gave my opinion already above). I'm happy to withdraw this, but I'll let it open for a bit longer to let others chime in as well if they want to. Fram (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously support the merge - should we close and create a merge discussion or just leave it open to run? SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is down to an editing and housekeeping issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fram indicated he would withdraw. He just wanted to allow a bit of time for others to chime in. I don't see the need for a merge discussion when this is withdrawn. I can just go ahead and do it. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bellona Publishing House. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wydawnictwo MON[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced stub (that has been like this for years) that reads like a hit piece or policy designed to says its not reliable. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirecting to Bellona Publishing House is a quick and easy solution, and I was going to suggest it, but then I decided to spend a few more minutes digging and I found enough to make me think it is notable per WP:NORG. WMON stands for the Publishing House of the Polish Ministry of Defense (active during the communist era) Pl wiki does not have an article on it but pl:Bellona (wydawnictwo) has a split suggestion, but there is nothing to split right now, one sentence about WMON receiving a governmental award. It may have an entry in [52], but I can't see it in the snippet and it could be just a passing mention. Ditto for [53] (that source is a 1981 'small encyclopedia' of Polish publishing industry). [54] seems to have a paragraph (?) about its history, again, snippet view prevents me from seeing how in-depth it is. But at this point I was able to establish the year it was founded and its original name, and a google books search for Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej „ Prasa Wojskowa " shows several more sources. Again, all are snippet view, but together, I think it is clear this was a notable publishing house. Further sources: this article has several paragraphs about WMON and also helps to establish the notability of the modern Bellona; a self-published I guess book about itself on its 20th anniversary in 1967, an article about Bellona and its history including WMON in a major Polish newspaper, Bellona and WMON listed in the list of major Polish publishing houses in the Polish PWN encyclopedia ([55]), same encyclopedia has an article on Bellona ([56])... the topic may be difficult to destub without access to non-digitized Polish books, but I think it is clearly a notable publishing house (several decades of activity, attached to a ministry, and published hundreds if not thousands of books). PS. I added some refs to the article is no longer unreferenced. May I suggest withdrawing this nom, User:Slatersteven? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, as (you even seem to say) there should in fact be a merge (in effect). Which can be the result of an AFD. I am not sure there is really anything here to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I am ambivalent about the merge; it makes some sense, as one could argue the company has just changed names (and there is no confusing merge to deal with). But I am a bit sad you would say there is nothing to keep; I've referenced every single sentence, and the sources cited here clearly show the company is significant in the context of the history of the Polish publishing industry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about 4 lines, that is what I mean.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoormIDE[edit]

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

Promotional article about unremarkable software by a non-notable company. MER-C 10:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MER-C 10:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I found on the topic was blogs, press releases, or the company's website. Lack of reliable, primary sources on the software, failing WP:NSOFT. I would also note the article on the company itself is on the verge of getting deleted. -- Dps04 (talk) 19:34, 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 merge to Stone butch. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 07:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone femme[edit]

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

Uncited slang term. For over 5 years the only citation was an online forum, and that was removed a year ago as not a reliable source. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - this is an important LGBT term with several reliable references, including reliable essays and journals on sexuality and gender identity. A very very quick Google found references at Medium, several journals on gender identity, this book, and this book. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stone butch. This is an unsourced DICDEF, most definitions of which revolve around the phenomenon of stone butch. (Cardiffbear, even some of your linked sources acknowledge this.) I think we would be better off improving the stone butch article with this sort of scholarly information about the partners of stone butches, than keeping this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stone butch and subsequently redirect there. Worth at least mentioning in that article - although I think Roscelese actually meant merge rather than plain redirect too, from the comment they've accompanied their !vote with. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge. Notable identity, likely passes GNG; merge is acceptable course for now until someone does the work to improve article. This was never a good AfD candidate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bergmann[edit]

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

No evidence of notability except his own website. Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 09:01, 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) 12:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi Kevichüsa[edit]

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

~~non notable fashion designer. fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. And entirely nothing outside very local random coverage. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 08:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 10:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep. This article can surely be improved. Would be bias if other fashion designers can be included but not a fashion designer who is notable from a minor community is not. There are some coverage on media and it is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that she is a notable fashion designer from Nagaland. Anonymousme (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admin - Keep vote is from article creator Spiderone 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sourcing to establish WP:BASIC, never mind WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Interactive Entertainment[edit]

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

Seems like spam, and sources aren’t good either. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 02:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 08:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references (that don't look like they copied Wikipedia articles), never mind references with 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⁺⁺ 21:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covidiot[edit]

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

This article is nothing but a WP:DICDEF. Therefore, restore the soft redirect to Wiktioary. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NEO states that articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. This term has received tremendous amounts of coverage, so this does not apply here. Furthermore, the term itself clearly passes the GNG. CJK09 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEO. The term is just vague abuse with no clear meaning. The article claims that it means people not following official advice but the sources indicate that it's mainly directed at people hoarding toilet paper. If it gets into issues like the (not) wearing of masks/face cloths, herd immunity and sunbathing then it will become controversial as the official advice is not consistent across different countries. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Official advice is not only "not consistent across different countries", it has at times and in places been just plain inconsistent. In the US early on they said not to wear masks if you were not sick. Different jurisdictions have different views on use of masks in open air outdoor areas. This is also a major term of abuse, and considering it is most heavily used for people who are not in any way in violation of any law or guideline, just acting in a way people do not like, it is not really a notable term we need an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 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. Sandstein 08:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nia K. Foxx[edit]

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

Fails WP:DEL#8, Insignficant author. See WP:N and WP:BIO. Nightvour (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nightvour (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some random no-name romance author. Dronebogus (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable romance writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, no coverage in reliable sources. Tacyarg (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above all. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. McCullough[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a political commentator and blogger, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG. Virtually across the board, this article is referenced entirely to unreliable and non-notability-supporting primary sources, such as YouTube videos and his own bylined writing -- but as always, you do not make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his writing to itself as evidence that it exists, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his writing to third party coverage about his writing as evidence that other people have deemed it significant. But there's literally only one footnote here (#27) that even resembles the kind of sourcing that's required, by virtue of being a real newspaper article written by somebody other than McCullough himself -- but even that article just namechecks McCullough's existence briefly while not being about him to any non-trivial degree, which means it isn't enough coverage to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only independent secondary source in the article. As always, notability is not a thing people get to confer on themselves by being the author of their own sources -- it's a thing journalists have to confer on you by writing about you in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t know how similar this is to the previously deleted article, but it still lacks RIS and depends on self-created sources. Mccapra (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the difficulties this wikipage raises. This is my first time creating a biography page of anyone, let alone a live person, and it is my third wikipage in total so I am not accustomed to these Wikipedia guidelines. I have tried to add a few more third person accounts (there are a handful now), though most of the information on the Wikipage is still not based on these sources, so I while it would be regretful, I would understand if the page is to be deleted. On the side, I would like to ask, if a page is deleted, what exactly will be left of it? Will the fact that it has been deleted still be floating around somewhere in some annal? Or will this nomination and the deletion of the page be archived? Just for curiosity. In addition, this project page is named : "Articles for deletion/J. J. McCullough (2nd nomination) (section)". What does "2nd nomination" mean? Anyways, thank you for the input, and I'll keep this in mind if I ever try to create another biopage of someone else. DieSonneUnsLacht (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)DieSonneUnsLach (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tried to make an article on J.J. before but it got deleted. User:Morty-0 —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist. We really should go to making all articles go through the Articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. After a search, the subject appears to be a freelance opinion writer and columnist and an occasional freelance cartoonist. Wide coverage could not be found, and notability has not been shown. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rerun van Pelt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Aside from the multiple issues the article has, I don’t know if the alternative of having the article get WP:BLOWITUP if it were to avoid being deleted would benefit or if it would not. Pahiy (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only notable for being a reoccurring relative of Linus and Lucy. Not a main character, nor even a member of the original cast. Keeping this article would be akin to keeping an article on SpongeBob’s parents. Dronebogus (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not !voting on this because I have a huge conflict of interest in regards to Peanuts (I have recently done Peanuts-related work for the Schulz studio, and have for many years done Peanuts-related in various media and for various publishers that needed to be approved by the studio, and I publish non-Peanuts Schulz materials, in some cases under a license from the Schulz estate.) However, I do feel the need to address the claim just stated that Rerun is not a "main character". He very much is in the last few years of the strip. In the final full year of the strip (1999) for example, he appeared in 92 strips, almost always as the central character of that strip. He is also prominent in the animated specials of that era. He is the titular "I" in I Want a Dog for Christmas, Charlie Brown (2003) for which he is the human character on the DVD cover and on the title card, and the one being bullied in He's a Bully, Charlie Brown (not released until 2006, but begun by Schulz years before.) I realize that "main character" is not the same as "notable", so this is not a keep/delete argument, but I didn't think that that statement should go unchallenged once having been put forth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Sorry, I’m not a huge Peanuts fan so I only remembered him from a side role in some random special that wasn’t part of the iconic Christmas-Easter-Halloween-Thanksgiving set and assumed he wasn’t a big character. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Nat Gertler says, Rerun was a major character in the 1990s, and has been discussed in interviews, Schulz biographies and academic writing about Peanuts. I just improved the article, and here are some of the sources that I used:
- Charles Schulz: Conversations, 1997 Comics Journal interview by Gary Groth, reprinted in book form by University Press of Mississippi (2000)
- The Art and Making of Peanuts Animation: Celebrating Fifty Years of Television Specials by Charles Solomon, Chronicle Books (2012)
- Peanuts and American Culture: Essays on Charles M. Schulz's Iconic Comic Strip ed by Peter W.Y. Lee, McFarland & Co (2019)
- The Comics of Charles Schulz: The Good Grief of Modern Life ed by Jared Gardner and Ian Gordon, University Press of Mississippi (2017)

There is still some work to be done on the article, but this is enough to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty obviously notable per the above two and WP:BEFORE not done; this at best will get redirected and won't be deleted. Nate • (chatter) 19:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Big in the 90s, his later diminished role is not a reason to delete. Pikavoom (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs' comments. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As this is a new article on a subject already covered in an older article, redirecting to that article as per speedy deletion A10. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Fazilatunnesa Mujib University[edit]

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

Two sentences, no references. Fuddle (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Bangamata Sheikh Fojilatunnesa Mujib Science & Technology University, an established article on the same university, just using a different transliteration for the name. CJK09 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per User:CJK09. Mccapra (talk) 11:35, 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 merge to Wycliffe Global Alliance. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 07:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wycliffe Bible Translators[edit]

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

I guess this is a disamb page, but it's mostly red links. The template is all red, too. And I'm not too sure about the UK & Ireland article. Fuddle (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to the parent article Wycliffe Global Alliance. gnu 57 03:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would make most sense if all the articles were merged into one. Given how little independent sourcing there is for the UK and for the USA articles, merging all of them would be my suggestion Basically there's very little to say about the subgroups; and even the parent article has almost entirely primary sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge by including list at Wycliffe Global Alliance. A wider merge may be more contentious and would require wider discussion by placing merge tags at all 3 relevant pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H. Loren Nielsen[edit]

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

The subject is quoted a handful of times in reliable sources, but nowhere is there independent coverage of the kind that would actually be something you could build an article around. Does not meet WP:GNG. Most of the article is original research, most egregiously the biography section which is entirely unsourced. It's also extremely promotional, although maybe not quite G11 level. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I agree with Rosguill, the subject does not have enough independent coverage and fails to meet WP:GNG. - Tatupiplu'^talk 03:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and this is borderline G11 and likely UPE. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was considering putting this up for deletion myself for these reasons. Mccapra (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that this person was key to a major shift of medium use in the entertainment industry needs sourcing that is reliable and adequate to support that claim, that is entirely lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, I'm the author of this article. I am a journalist who was fascinated to learn that the subject was in fact a key figure in transitioning the entire cinema industry towards digital projection. Thank you for your feedback, as this is my first article and I interviewed the subject to find out some of her biographical information and current leadership positions. I can understand if this article needs to be significantly shortened and some of that original research be removed. But as for notability, I'd argue that she is an important figure in modern cinema history - industry folks would agree. Maybe you can help me understand, because I'm not sure why this particular point is at issue -- please see the first two references in the article. If we can get to a place of agreement on that (let me know what else you need), maybe you can help me trim this piece to get to an acceptable place? Thanks bikejournalist (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bikejournalist, the primary issue here is that having read through the provided sources and looked for more online, I wasn't able to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. If better sources can't be found, no amount of editing is going to rescue the article. The issues about neutrality and original research are secondary. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the sources issue, this is a very promotional piece as per WP:PROMO that would qualify for G11 imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tev Hemmans[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the only available coverage is press releases. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending Disambiguate [Deleting is harsh, due to not recommending guidelines to put the article in better standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averywise (talk • contribs) 04:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is obviously a very enterprising young man but he isn’t yet notable. The article creator has responded to the AfD nomination by moving the article to draft. Mccapra (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - He has plenty of notability in the press, as notability guidelines states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averywise (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual. Since this article was not even in the living people category I have almost lost hope there is any chance we will not be over 1 million articles on living people by the end of the year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 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.

Kwong Weng Yap[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was merge to Office of Parliamentary Counsel (Australia). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 07:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Register of Legislation[edit]

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

The website of the Federal Register of Legislation is really not important, not enough to warrant an article. It's never been the topic of any news article and has no meaningful history beyond the fact that it exists. ItsPugle (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into Office of Parliamentary Counsel (Australia), with a redirect. Meticulo (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as Meticulo suggests. Deus et lex (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Client's Day[edit]

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

An unofficial holiday, does not look notable. P. S. Deleted in ruwiki. Wikisaurus (talk) 00:27, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Googling Client's Day I see an large amount of articles detailing and talking about it, and therefore it should pass WP:GNG. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also, ru wiki likely has different notability guidelines as en-wiki. Zoozaz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sources are not reliable in any way. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be widely adopted or acknowledged enough to rise to WP:GNG. Graywalls (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Online mentions of this subject do not appear to be from reliable sources. The fact that the article was deleted from ruwiki does not support the claim that this unofficial holiday is widely adopted in Russia. Alan Islas (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^# 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Manzecchi[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Vmavanti (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vmavanti (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is sourced to an encyclopedia article about Manzecchi in The New Grove (Oxford Music Online is a mirror of this encyclopedia). This is the premier scholarly encyclopedia on music; it is sufficient to write an article of substance on Manzecchi. Chubbles (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that articles need only one source? I mean that seriously, not sarcastically.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that, if Manzecchi has an article of substance in a music encyclopedia, that is sufficient to demonstrate that he can and should have an article of substance here in this encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is clear. But it's wrong. I don't have access to the resources that the editors of Oxford Music Online have because I don't work for them. Given that I don't subscribe, I can't read the article they have written to see how long it is, how substantial it is, or what sources they have used. Moreover, I'm not going to defer to the authority of Oxford. If Oxford says it, it must be true. If Oxford wrote about it, it must be important. I don't believe that. There's no such thing as a perfect authority, so editors shouldn't bother looking for them. I can make good arguments about why this or that entry in New Grove is wrong. Last, it's yet one more act of useless faith for someone to tack a template onto an article that says "Google Translate will solve your problems". It doesn't. I've read those crappy machine translations that can't even get the pronouns right, calling women "it.". I'm astonished anyone puts up with it. Using these "translations" is a sign of desperation. These articles aren't important enough to warrant desperation or any other extreme emotion. Let's deal with matters in the here and now, with what's in front of us. The authority of Oxford is an abstraction in the clouds. "There must be sources" isn't even an abstraction. It's fantasy and wishful thinking. I'm happy to add reliable sources to an article. Where are they?
Vmavanti (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been reluctant to comment here, in the hope that others will, because I know from experience what sort of flaming anyone who dares to disagree with the nominator will get, but it looks like someone has to bite the bullet. Manzecchi has an entry in the world's foremost English-language encyclopedia of music, so has been shown to be an encyclopedic topic. As for the nominator's rant above, we absolutely do defer to the judgement of reliable sources such as the Oxford University Press rather than use our own opinions, and nobody said anything at all about Google Translate - the instructions that come with the template in the article specifically warn against relying on machine translation alone. There are very many editors of the English Wikipedia who can read French, and this is not just a collection of articles whose sources one particular editor has access to. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence one: You are probably crossing over into incivility when you say "what sort of flaming anyone who dares to disagree with the nominator will get". People have been banned from Wikipedia for much, much less. I'm not saying you should be banned. I want people to speak freely. But there are consequences, too. I'm saying you should choose your words more carefully, because your word choice indicates the quality of your thinking. Clearly you haven't clearly thought out what you mean by "flaming" in relation to my posts. "Flaming" has multiple meanings, usually negative. But if you mean I take words seriously and argue my points rigorously, then I take that as a compliment. Thanks. "Dares disagree", though, implies I'm intolerant of disagreement. Wrong. I have little patience with strongly-held superficial responses, particularly in serious or semi-serious, time-consuming matters. The consumption of one's time is always a serious matter. You portray yourself as both a victim ("I know from experience"...sniff sniff) and a reluctant hero ("I have been reluctant...but someone has to bite the bullet"...I don't really want to but...Here I Come to Save the Day!...tuh-dah!). It's an introductory sentence that would make anyone stop reading and grab the air-sick bag.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By that you have confirmed that my reluctance was well-founded. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would make better arguments, you wouldn't be so afraid to debate them.Vmavanti (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two people now have made the claim that if an item appears in Oxford Music Online, then it is necessarily notable. Does anyone else on Wikipedia agree with this? Before you answer, you might want to read the documentation...much...more...carefully...Vmavanti (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there needs to be re-education on the difference between an opinion and a fact. Here's a fact: There was flooding in Texas yesterday. Now here's an opinion: Oxford Music Online is "the premier scholarly encyclopedia on music". Here's another: Oxford Music Online is "the world's foremost English-language encyclopedia of music". Which is repeating what the first person said rather than analyzing whether it is true or even relevant to the matter at hand. Anyone ever see the Seinfeld episode where George eats a candy bar with a knife and fork? By the end of the episode, there's a diner full of people eating candy bars with a knife and fork. Look at this way: Do the birds of your neighborhood hang out with other birds, or do they say, "Hey, let's get to know that Rottweiler over there"?
Vmavanti (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Michel Laplace’s article about the subject in the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the standard music encyclopaedia, is partly visible to non-subscribers via Oxford Music Online. Sources are also available to verify his roles on recordings by Chet Baker, Larry Young, Lou Bennett, André Hodeir, and others. There can also be found an event at the 2019 Ravenna Festival on “From Ravenna to Paris. Franco Manzecchi, a pioneer of the modern jazz drums” ([57], [58]). Overall, enough for WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the standard music encyclopaedia": Did you read my post, the one directly above yours? Did you understand it?
Vmavanti (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "the standard music encyclopaedia". For example; "For music lovers, the New Grove dictionary is Wisden, Britannica and the Bible rolled into one." The Guardian Books, 2001; "the leading English-language authority on music" "Writing about Music: A Style Sheet", etc. AllyD (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have quoted one person's opinion from one British newspaper. That shouldn't satisfy anyone about anything. I'm sure you understand how these companies sell products. Advertising oneself as "the leading English-language authority on music" has as much reality in it as the belief that one will be surrounded by supermodels after opening a can of the appropriate beer. It's just talk, and not very persuasive talk to thoughtful people. In fact, there is no such thing as an infallible authority on music or anything else. That goes for the other two great authorities mentioned, Britannica and the Bible, both having a long history of skeptics and detractors. Yielding to authority isn't something we're supposed to do on Wikipedia. "I know Frank, I like Frank, he's a good, smart man, and if he says it, then it must be true". That's not what we do on Wikipedia. You've got Wikipedia all wrong if you are suggesting that because an article has appeared in your chosen authority, then therefore there must be article written and that subject is automatically notable. One can distinguish between "this source is reliable and can be used" and "this source is not only reliable and useful, it's authoritative, infallible, and if they have written about it, then by God, that's good enough for little old me."
Vmavanti (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Article speedily deleted per G4 by MelanieN. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky patcher[edit]

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

Contested PROD - doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT. Passenger pigeon (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Passenger pigeon (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new's been presented since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky Patcher (3rd nomination) last year. (Odd that it was created here even though the proper title isn't salted anymore.) I deleted it the last two times; someone else's turn to push the button. —Cryptic 02:42, 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.