Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 May	28 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Jing[edit]

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG. Across the provided sources, I see a fair amount of non-independent coverage but nothing that is both independent and significant. Searching online returned more of the same, Jing seems to have a propensity for garnering mentions in "X habits of successful entrepreneur" clickbait articles. It may be easier to establish a case for notability for her company, Banish. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Java Hurricane 07:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 09:37, 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Molloy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER. Has not played a single match at professional level. SK2242 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not all that fussed about this article since he's a rookie in a fully pro league and a MLS first round draft pick and would have played but for covid. That being said the fact the article references his LinkedIn page while also failing WP:GNG (none of the sources pass that line I don't think) is a red flag. This is the best source I found and it's mostly an interview and has a plug for his podcast at the end, and there's a bunch of national Irish MLS draft pick related coverage - if he were playing it'd probably be fine to keep. Not entirely sure what to suggest here, it's sort of a twilight zone notable article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to a weak keep. I think he barely passes WP:GNG as it stands, he's been a professional, he's on a professional side. If he never plays again or gets anymore press we can revisit it, but I don't think it's WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SK2242 He played 14 matches for Drogheda United FC a professional side in Ireland and 28 for Reading United AC including 2 caps in the U.S. Open Cup all of those are professional caps. Not too sure why this would be deleted considering he was a top draft pick as well and would have had caps as User:SportingFlyer said. I will take a look at the sourcing and see if I can pull some better sources. NoahRiffe (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:NoahRiffe, I believe the League of Ireland First Division and the USL League Two are not professional leagues (The latter is a development league). Furthermore, the cup games won’t count because they have to be 2 teams in fully professional leagues, which Reading United isn’t. SK2242 (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I’m not sure why you created the exact same page in user/draft space and submitted it. SK2242 (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SK2242The club he played for Drogheda United FC has had appearances in the UEFA Champions League, it's a second div league, just like the USL Championship. My apologies for editing and then creating I honestly messed that up, was not my intention to submit both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahRiffe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SK2242 Here is a link to see the tiers of football play out in Ireland Republic of Ireland football league system

Strong delete Has not played a game. The fact that if he had played a game he would then be considered notable is a clear sign we have way too low a standard for notability. However he does not meet that standard, we do not create articles on the assumption people will become notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert & User:GiantSnowman Let me just talk a bit out what you said here.

Has not played a game: He played 14 matches for Drogheda United FC a professional side in the League of Ireland First Division. ref here ->Republic of Ireland football league system. Because of COVID the league was postponed but he is still on the active roster for Portland Timbers 2.
fails GNG and NFOOTBALL: According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability he checks both of these boxes "Players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below: Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." For GNG he passes the "Significant coverage", I am working on adding more news articles about him. "Reliable", Sourced from leagues MLS, USL, PDL, state newspapers and more. "Independent of the subject", I removed all sources directly connected to the subject. "Presumed", He was a top draft pick in the MLS Superdraft, he is linked in multiple other wiki articles he just doesn't have his own page.

Best, NoahRiffe (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source you gave me doesn’t mention the word "professional" anywhere. In fact it seems none of the Irish football league system is professional. SK2242 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about Irish football, but I seem to recall this fact that it lakes any fully professional component being discussed elsewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Players who play in Ireland fail the WP:NFOOTY presumption but can still pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, Molloy is currently on a team which would pass WP:NFOOTY if he made an appearance, and has national Irish coverage along with a smattering of US coverage for WP:GNG. A classic edge case, exacerbated by the lack of football being played. SportingFlyer T·C 19:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:53, 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 keep. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus that the subject's body of work is sufficient to support notability. However, it remains the case that batter sourcing must be provided for claims made in the article, and those supporting its retention should see to that. BD2412 T 23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Winkless[edit]

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

A non notable voice actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial coverage that could help to improve the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP WP:ENTERTAINER is the subject specific guideline for voice actors. They have played a significant role in notable media. A major character on Castle in the Sky, the main character of Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water, Count Magnus Lee on Vampire Hunter D, etc. Dream Focus 20:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any reliable secondary sources to back this up? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Their name is in the credits of the entertainment media. Primary sources are fine for things like this. Also common sense that the main character in a notable film is a notable part does not require any secondary sources to tell you that, you can hopefully think for yourself. Dream Focus 21:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I’m really concerned that an editor of such experience believes this. Please read WP:BLP and come back with secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. You can verify things in the credits of what they've been in. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. I don't see any information there challenged. The guideline exist to prevent any slanderous lies from being in someone's article. There is nothing that could be seen as slanderous to the person, therefore its not a BLP issue. If you can list him in the credits of the articles for the films and television shows he's been in, then you can list that information in his own article. Dream Focus 22:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        In WP:N it states that all standalone articles must be sourced using “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. We currently have no evidence of this. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. So it doesn't have to pass the general notability guidelines that you just mentioned, if it passes a subject specific guideline like WP:ENTERTAINER Dream Focus 22:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        ...But articles must have reliable sources under WP:V and WP:OR. At the moment, there are no reliable sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not original research by any possible means. You only need to verify something if it is in doubt. Is there anything listed that anyone has any reasonable doubt is true? And I added some reliable sources. Clicked the link at the top of the AFD to search for Wikipedia reliable sources, and found TV guide confirming they were in one thing, and an link to Amazon.com page which list him in the credits for another. Having this same pointless argument every single time a voice actor comes up to AFD is tiresome. Usually they are kept, sometimes not, but its just a waste of time. Been going on for years now. The Wikiproject for Anime and Manga should be where standards are discussed for this type of article, and just leave it be. Doesn't really matter if people find this information on Wikipedia, or the manga wikia https://manga.fandom.com/wiki/Jeff_Winkless or elsewhere. Not really worth the bother to constant argue over it. Dream Focus 02:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with WP:REFUND. The article is poorly sourced and fails WP:GNG. I see there are Amazon sources and Dream Focus mentioned the Wikia, but those are not considered reliable sources by even WP:ANIME. I am inclined to believe this article can be kept due to WP:ENTERTAINER as long as Winkless' "notable" roles are sourced, and they are not. lullabying (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft move to draftspace for improvement as he does have a number of prominent roles as per WP:NACTOR but better referencing is needed imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect/Merge: For the moment, based on WP:NACTOR, I am voting "Weak Keep". There wouldn't be much of an issue verifying the subject's roles, because there a lots of hits at newspapers.com in TV listings. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of in-depth coverage, though. I have found an obituary, which I will get clipped and provide here, but I'm not sure whether it would be considered acceptable as a WP:GNG-source. Alternatively, perhaps a redirect/merge to a "List of Voice Actors" page might work—if such a page exists. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, obituaries in reliable sources count towards WP:GNG if they have significant biographical content and are not paid obituaries, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Atlantic306. This may be a paid obituary, I'm not sure. As soon as it is clipped I will provide it here. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the obituary to which I referred above: here. I haven't yet read it yet, so feedback is most welcome. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure really, there doesn't seem to be a byline unless its been cut, it is significant content but it needs to be independent which a byline would indicate, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Atlantic306. Is there anywhere we might be able to redirect to, like a "List of Voice Actors" page? Dflaw4 (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Id rather put into draftspace for future improvement, as a list of actors has very little info, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seem that there are some sources, enough to pass GNG, but generally not in-depth on the man. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Editorofthewiki other than the obituary above, what sources are you referring to? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a couple obits plus [1] [2] [3] [4]. Maybe a few Newspapers.com sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A BLP so a second relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per reasons above. With the sources indicated, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than enough significant roles to satisfy the applicable SNGs, and no reason to believe that any of the delete proponents have done an adequate WP:BEFORE search, especially on print sources for the subject's extensive pre-internet work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SNGs do not override the need to locate reliable sources, they are merely an indication. And WP:BEFORE sets out minimum requirements before nominating an article for WP:AFD which are not exhaustive and do not cover print media. Therefore claiming someone hasn’t completed WP:BEFORE because they missed a print-only source is erroneous. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can I please ask all editors to review the sources presented in this AfD, I still do not believe there is enough for WP:GNG at this stage. All of the sources presented so far are either passing mentions, unreliable sources, captions on a picture, or listicles. As a BLP the sourcing needs to be far more substantial in my view. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:24, 4 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 keep. After extended time for discussion, there is no reasonable possibility that this will come out other than as a consensus to keep. BD2412 T 00:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gravel Switch, Livingston County, Kentucky[edit]

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

Railroad switch fails GNG, no evidence of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 06:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Dlthewave, You should add this to the wikiproject train. I don't know how to add it or I'd do it myself. Normal Op (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete a fairly unremarkable rail spot, originally recorded in WP as a "community" per the usual GNIS misreading of the maps. I'm not seeing the notability other than the usual documentation which is commonly availalbe for many rail locations. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Grand Rivers, Kentucky#History, as this named place is part its rail/river/crushed stone/dam history.07:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC) (This unsigned !vote was by Djflem) (changed to Keep or mergeDjflem (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Keep (strong): Meets notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and neutral point of view. The topic meets WP:GNG including significant coverage. Several historical documents mention this area by name, mention where it was, mention what products came from it, and how those products were used. Though the mentions were brief, they were neither trivial nor a passing mention. The sources are reliable, are secondary sources, and are independent of the subject. I'm sure the original reason to PROD or AfD this article was because one could not SEE anything on a current satellite view, and a cursory google search of "gravel switch" brought up nothing. However, now that there has been some researching and article improvement, we've discovered that there are sources, including ample maps, SHOWING that this place was populated, active and commercial. The products from this area were mentioned in several of the citations, along with mentioning the name of this place and where it sits in relation to other known places. That the TVA built a dam and flooded the nearby area, causing the railroads to re-route their line right through the old operating area of Gravel Switch, doesn't negate that the place existed as an area (not simply a railroad switch that has since been removed). As for a merge argument, the article subject doesn't really fit into any other article. I say Keep because the arguments for deletion don't hold water. (Pun intended... because of the new lake.) Normal Op (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re any arguments for merging: Per Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger, it says "Merging should be avoided if: ... 3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short". It has been suggested to merge it with Grand Rivers, Kentucky however Gravel Switch was not IN Grand Rivers, and still is not in Grand Rivers even though the city limits have been expanded. It was, and still is, in Livingston County, Kentucky and that would be a better merge target if one needed to be chosen. Normal Op (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IF: It is in Lake City, an unincorporated area (once called Jessup), for which there is no article (though this would work within it). The quarry is the Grand Rivers Quarry; references consistently mention GR; and it's part of the economic history of the "greater" Grand Rivers region.Djflem (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grand Rivers, Kentucky. There no requirement whatsoever that content about a city is limited to that only within legal limits: coverage of area geography, businesses, and history is regularly included with the nearest city, and this is the best way to consolidate relevant information for readers, seeing that Grand Rivers is mentioned as the relevant community in sources. Citation review: [5] passing mention, [6] passing mention, [7] does not mention Gravel Switch, [8] database entry about quarry, [9] brief blurb of Grand Rivers quarry as a producer of crushed stone, [10] passing mention of quarry. I am simply baffled how this possibly passes GNG or even WP:V. This article synthesizes together a former rail switch and the quarry terminal now nearby, using original research to claim "Gravel Switch is an area", rather than it just being former name of the spur line and its then-gravel operation as indicated by the sources. There is no evidence at all this is the name of the quarry terminal area or railroad through-line today: the two sources with passing mentions of the spur switch fail to use it that way. Reywas92^Talk 04:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is very potentially notable, but there's also a Gravel Switch in Marion County and I want to make sure the heaps of references are for the proper community. Gravel Switch, Marion County has a census designation but Livingston county does not, and [11] describes it as a flag stop. SportingFlyer T·C 06:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of others of interest: Gannett, Henry, ed. (1906). "A Dictionary of Altitudes in the United States (Department of the Interior USGS Bulletin No. 274)". U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved May 21, 2020. & Illinois Central Magazine, vol. 46–47, Illinois Central Magazine, 1957, p. 39 (IC did not run to locale in Marion).Djflem (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This fails WP:GEOLAND as it's not a community but probably passes WP:GEOFEAT as a gravel deposit that's been fairly decently covered. Probably a weaker keep, but I see no reason to delete this, given we're a gazetteer. SportingFlyer T·C 04:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have added mining wikiproject to article talkpage so that those editors are aware of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article needs some more work but deservs to stay or may be merged to Grand Rivers, Kentucky#History. Alex-h (talk) 09:52, 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 no consensus. Sourcing appears to be borderline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Tessier[edit]

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

A non notable character actor, with WP:BEFORE showing no evidence of substantial coverage Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to compile a list of their roles — and further, the vast majority of the roles listed here are supporting or guest appearances as minor characters, some of whom didn't even have names. So there are only a few roles here that might have been notable enough to count as "significant" for the purposes of WP:NACTOR — but even then, NACTOR still isn't passed just because such "possibly significant" roles appear in the list, and still requires a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the roles by actually saying something substantive, above and beyond just the cast list, about him and his performances. No sources, no article. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the closest we get to a big time productions is the role "Muto's Crows nest tech #2" I think it is pretty safe to say we are dealing with a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't say I agree with John Pack Lambert's assessment of the subject's notability; he has had a number of significant roles in notable productions throughout his career (the part that John mentioned was one of his more minor ones). There are also several sources discussing the subject and his work: here, here, here and here. I therefore believe that the relevant notability standards are met. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a small handful of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in his own hometown local newspaper is not in and of itself enough coverage to get a person over WP:GNG in the absence of any wider attention — and the only one of those four sources that is from anywhere extralocal just mentions his name without being about him or his character to any non-trivial degree. So no, that's not enough coverage to change the equation here. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, there are more sources online. There is coverage—that is my point. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then show us the three best sources you're finding, not just three or four random weak ones. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be brusque, Bearcat. I haven't gone through every source, and I don't think those I provided are necessarily weak sources, either. I'll get some more clipped for you. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, person is notable enough to be kept. I remember watching him on YCDTOTV and Are You Afraid of the Dark, yes notable indeed. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to reliable sources that would confirm this? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He had significant roles in You Can't Do That on Television and The Tomorrow People. It's not much, but I think that it satisfies WP:NACTOR #1. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NACTOR is not a golden ticket to uncontestable notability. It's a presumptive standard - we presume that people who meet one or more of the criteria are probably going to have generated sufficient coverage to meet WP:N, and that's usually true (or else we'd rewrite the criteria). But if we can't confirm that there is sufficient N-satisfying coverage (remember, N requires substantial coverage at a broad, not simply local level), then the article fails the notability test and we cannot keep it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: a second relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real dispute that the subject satisfies applicable SNG's. Instead, all we have in response is thoroughly unsubstantiated speculation about the possible nonexistence of sources. Given that the subject had regular or recurring roles in at least eight TV series, that argument is exceptionally implausible. SNGs exist precisely to avoid timewasting disputes where sources are likely to exist, and where there is no factually based dispute over basic claims. They are not disregarded simply because an editor blurts "Prove it!" The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SNGs do not override WP:GNG which state that reliable sources must be found. Otherwise we’d have BLPs with no sources just because someone says so, which is ridiculous. So “prove it” is an entirely reasonable response. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. As it stands, this is a substantial WP:BLP violation, because no claims in the article are sourced at all. The sole source provided is for a single role in the list. BD2412 T 17:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The actor has 66 roles to date. He has around 10 roles in large film productions, and was especially active in the first half of 2000s, with roles in The Score (2001 film), I can't believe that there weren't any publications about him then. There is a passing mention of him in film Power Corps. (2004) in a book, there were publications in newspapers about him — see urls above. He starred in web-series, and has role in upcoming TV series Sweet Tooth by Team Downey starring Will Forte. Кирилл С1 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of roles someone has is irrelevant, it’s how notable those roles are. All of which needs to be backed up with reliable sources. Have you managed to find any further sources? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am currently adding the sources I found above to the article, so as to alleviate any WP:BLP concerns. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would also say that it would be virtually impossible to have coverage, even trivial coverage, for every role in an actor's career. I think more can be done to improve the article—and I will continue to work on it if it remains—but, for the moment, I believe that it is certainly good enough to pass the notability criteria. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:48, 5 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. Sandstein 09:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StupidFilter[edit]

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

Taking to AfD because the present PROD tags are invalid due to a dePROD in 2014.

Original nom this time around was Robincantin, with the rationale: "Article about a piece of software that's been "in development" for the last 13 years."

Endorsed by Phil Bridger with the rationale: "Clearly a piece of software that went nowhere, and only attracted a couple of "gee-whiz" news items when it was announced. If I was designing a filter for stupidity it would filter out anything written in in camelCase and undated "status" pages that only tell us what the status was in the dim and distant past."

In my opinion the subject fails WP:N, which requires significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time (my bold), ie, not simply a couple of "wow won't this be cool" articles around the time of the announcement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This software would have been notable had it been developed. Alas, such an occurrence has not come to pass.TH1980 (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - caused some coverage at the time, but that was just a blip. No sustained coverage over time. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 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. Sandstein 09:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Dünzkofer[edit]

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

Not very notable clergyman Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has had more press coverage than the average clergyman because of his stand on gay issues and some other publicity, including as an unsuccessful candidate for a bishopric, but not enough for notability.Ingratis (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any in depth coverage of him. Being an unsuccessful candidate for a bishopric and officiating at the first gay marriage in the Church of Scotland isn't really enough.--Jahaza (talk) 00:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghogha (rapper)[edit]

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

Notability PERSIA ♠ 21:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable musician and multimedia artist with reliable sources under the name of Setareh Malekzadeh^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armin3001 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5 more reliable sources are provided. ^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]Armin3001 (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/exayxp/11842-revision-4
^ https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ghogha-trotsar-regimen-i-iran
^ https://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2010/02/100207_l11_sweden_hiphop_music.shtml
^ https://setarehmalekzadeh.com/tagged/about
^ https://www.svd.se/gogha-rappar-for-frihet
^ https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2010-04-14/hon-kan-inte--vara-tyst-langre
^ https://www.dn.se/arkiv/kultur/hiphopfestival-ger-hopp-for-iran/
^ https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=478&artikel=4554660
^ https://magasinetnovell.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/samhallsfaran-ghogha-flydde-iran-for-musiken/?fbclid=IwAR37cZ3eHX6y2hOfHMgqSSiQWmHe_iNzApAnPHnUsN9FoLpWSLHLsxiVbCo

Keep, see the references given by Armin3001, including e.g. non-trivial content from the Swedish national broadcasting company. /Julle (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with this AFD. More details needed for deletion. @Persia: you are nominating a lot of AFDs.. in this short period of time, it is not possible to nominate carefully. Anyway, this person is notable. Lexy iris (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage added to the article such as Dagbladet newspaper and other sources identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 3 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 redirect to High Road (Kesha album). Consensus not to keep. Unclear whether to merge or redirect. Redirection is a compromise. Sandstein 18:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High Road Tour[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in addition to the above, every citation used in the article aside from a merchandise link are merely announcements (both plans and cancellations), four of which are tweets from Kesha that don't count towards WP:GNG when they're primary sources. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. livelikemusic (TALK!) 23:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Then just merge it with High Road. Keshaanimalcannibalwarrior (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High Road (Kesha album): One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per nom. There is hardly any content apart from mere announcements. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge due to lack of coverage in reliable sources Pi (Talk to me!) 13:14, 4 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 redirect to Britney Spears#2018–present: Piece of Me Tour, hiatus, and the #FreeBritney movement. Where it is mentioned. Sandstein 18:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britney: Domination[edit]

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

Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS, any relevant information here is already covered on her main article. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Britney Spears: One of the sources state that the tour has been postponed. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - I can't see any sources suggesting that this is going to go ahead. All relevant information is included in Britney Spears Pi (Talk to me!) 19:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britney Spears - as the nominator pointed out, relevant information on the cancelled tour is covered on her main article, so making this a redirect would be appropriate. Plausible search term. -- Dps04 (talk) 17:36, 3 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 redirect to Changes (Justin Bieber album). Sandstein 18:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Tour[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 20:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Changes (Justin Bieber album): One of the sources state that the tour has been postponed. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:EVENTCRIT this is an article about a tour which will not happen. The article is WP:TOOSOON Lightburst (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. desmay (talk) 21:31, 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 redirect to Erfan (rapper)#Az Khaneh Ta Goor (2007). Sandstein 18:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Az Khaneh Ta Goor[edit]

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

Notability PERSIA ♠ 20:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. PERSIA ♠ 20:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable album from non-notable rapper. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Erfan (rapper): Barely found anything about the album. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:36, 3 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. Sandstein 18:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic memory (biology)[edit]

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

Article mentions several aspects of genetics and "Lamarckian" inheritance, but attempts to synthesize these with a brief uncited introduction into the pseudoscience topic named in the article title. Sources exist, therefore, for the subtopics, but no reliable scientific source (such as a systematic review article) exists for the topic as a whole. The article should therefore be deleted as Original Research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The real scientific version of this is at Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Natureium (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natureium: Not exactly: that is one aspect, and it's genuine science, but not a synonym for "genetic memory"; there are other examples listed in the article. What the article is trying to do is to tie all the different bits of real but disparate science together into one non-scientific domain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fringey synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
rename and cleanup: calling for deletion of flawed articles is lazy. Btw, I do not think this is "fringey synthesis" in origin, it seems that this goes back to my splitting off various off-topic "biological" material from the article on genetic memory proper. I think the proper approach here would be to rename to somatic memory (which appears to be a bona fide term) and prune any material that doesn't relate to that topic. --dab (𒁳) 05:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be yet another subject, not a synonym. The synthesis, if such it is, would have preceded your splitting; the material should I think have been deleted rather than split off, but that was surely at the time an easy mistake to make, given there was technical-looking material in an article about something else. On laziness, that is a forbidden personal attack; it's also false, as I investigated the matter carefully, and having written several articles on related topics (like Lamarckism and Orthogenesis...) I'm familiar with the area and its fringiness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I made a mistake: I did split off the material as useless crap. It's just that my view of "deletion" is different: Instead of throwing out everything, you should just blank the material that is useless and retain the stuff that is relevant. The useless material can always remain in the edit history so people can review it and perhaps rescue tidbits that are useful after all. And come on, I did not "attack you personally", I voiced a general opinion of how to approach editing broken articles. Do tone down the belligerence, nobody is attacking you, this isn't even remotely a content dispute, I am sure we agree on pretty much everything regarding Lamarckism etc., I am just giving my view on how to approach cases such as this as a task of copyediting. --dab (𒁳) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we're agreed it's "useless crap" then deletion is the right answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are subtopics backed by reliable sources, e.g., epigenetic memory is a well-established set of concepts. Epigenetics plays a role in memory formation, see Epigenetics in learning and memory. Epigenetic state can be inheritable, see Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Some believe it plays a role in evolution, see Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution. DNA can be used as a memory storage device, see DNA digital data storage and E. coli for that matter. But I was unable to find any reliable sources in biology that discuss these and other subtopics under the umbrella term of genetic memory. In order to be viable, a general overview article like needs reliable sourcing that provides such overviews--books or review articles on genetic memory. Without such, this article is original research through synthesis and should be deleted. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:56, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Sambandam[edit]

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

Sources provided for this businessman are about equally split between unabashed promo features (this one could serve as a museum piece for soapbox enabler interviews) and coverage of his businesses, OrangeScape and Kissflow. Normally I would say, redirect to one of these, but since OrangeScape is currently lingering in draft, I'd suggest deletion instead. A redirect can easily be set up again when/if there is an article for one of the companies. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. We have way too many sources on such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and above. No indication of notability. Electiondata (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, nothing to show notability. Nika2020 (talk) 11:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allen, California[edit]

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

Moving on to Amador County, California, we have yet another isolated house in the middle of a national forest, the ruin of which is still visible on GMaps. It's one small building, not a community. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Allen" or "Allen Camp" was located on the Carson Trail (see [12]). This document published by Amador County states "Many families that grazed cattle and sheep left their names associated with places such as Allen Camp". The Allen Camp hiking trail is well documented. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So a family grazed cattle there, no evidence there was ever a community there, less a notable one. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was a community there, nor did I vote keep. I simply added content relevant to this discussion. No need to be loutish. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you said that. This is a separate vote, not a response to your comment which was indeed relevant, thanks for the sources. Just saying cattle grazing may be representative of a number of these non-community ranches. Reywas92^Talk 23:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Unincorporated community" label is OR. Sources confirm that this was just a cattle/sheep grazing area, no evidence of significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another United States Geological Survey stub that should never have been created. --Cornellier (talk) 17:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZingGrid[edit]

ZingGrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

ZingChart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Paid-for spam [13][14] about non-notable software by a non-notable company. MER-C 18:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MER-C 18:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I thought about nominating them myself for the same reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, per nom. non notable company and ... Alex-h (talk) 10:09, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mifos X[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:GNG. No references are provided (at all). Mikeblas (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Borderline WP:G11 too. GregorB (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 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 Qatar T10 League. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Qatar T10 League[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket competition, fails WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unclear how this fails WP:NCRIC or WP:CRIN. The relevant criteria for clubs, teams and venues (which we can use as a model to determine the notability of a league) states:

Difficulty may arise with clubs that have not competed at senior level and, similarly, with venues that have not staged first-class or List A matches. "Minor cricket" is a specific term in the sport that does not necessarily imply a lack of notability; in parallel with sports like association football and baseball, many cricket clubs in "minor leagues" are professionally run and do employ professional players. It is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure.

(emphasis is mine)

The Qatar T10 league is clearly "minor" but not clearly non-notable. The Qatar league is well-known (at least in Qatar) and has an established presence there. There appears to be a benefit to having the article as this information is readily available elsewhere. The league seems to have First class players which is explicitly a criteria for notability (of individuals) -

WikiProject Cricket participants have adopted the following guidelines for notability of cricket people, men's and women's cricket having equal importance, to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia: [the individual must have] appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level

In general and looks at the criteria it seems as though the players, and potentially the teams in the league are notable for inclusion - and equally the league should also be notable enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderstorm008 (talk • contribs)

Merge into Qatar T10 League. There is only one season so far, and no evidence it passes WP:NSEASONS. Qatar is not an important cricketing nation, and this league is not notable enough to have articles for every season (if there is even more than one season of it). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Qatar T10 League Only has one season so far and has no evidence which would have pass WP:NSEASONS especially being in a non-cricketing nation like Qatar. HawkAussie (talk) 05:30, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crypted[edit]

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

Non notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian death metal band. The notability of this page has been doubted since January 2020. I am not surprised as the sources aren't worth crap. The "sources" presented are the following: Reverb Nation, some blog, Metal Archives, a site which isn't even available and a concert promotion in The Hindu where Crypted is mentioned alongside other bands, in four words (Crypted - Progressive Death Metal). That's it. But I don't see reliable, secondary sources. I did a Google search (with the word "crypted" in quotation marks) and the results were dictionary definitions and tips about removing a computer virus of the same name. The only thing I found about the band was a Spotify page which is not a reliability making source either. When I first searched for this band without quotation marks, I did not found anything about them, only bands which have "crypt" in their names or named "crypt". By the way, the sources are also the same on the Spanish Wikipedia too. I think this band is absolutely not notable. I can even see a speedy deletion around here.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:47, 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 Syracuse Pros. Sandstein 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Syracuse Pros players[edit]

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

A list of people who played for an American football team that lasted one season and, despite the article's assertion, is not recognized by the NFL as being a member of the league at any point. The category Category:Syracuse Pros players suffices in place of this short list. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Syracuse Pros is the obvious choice here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Syracuse Pros and merge any information there as appropriate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Paul McDonald and Ejgreen77. Cbl62 (talk) 19:52, 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 redirect to Bob Dylan#Never Ending Tour. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never Ending Tour 2020[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is a big nothingburger WP:CRYSTAL Lightburst (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bob Dylan#Never Ending Tour: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bob Dylan. Nika2020 (talk) 11:46, 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 redirect to Rascal Flatts. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life Is a Highway Tour[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is a big nothingburger Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rascal Flatts: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:02, 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 redirect to Lady Antebellum. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean 2020 Tour[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lady Antebellum: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:02, 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! 06:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summer 2020 Tour[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Mix: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made. CodeSlashh (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above comments. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. The title is totally ambiguous and would probably be deleted at RfD. The first page of Google gives no results for Little Mix outside of Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect per User:King of Hearts. Many groups can already claim a cancelled "Summer 2020 Tour", so this would not be an appropriate title for a redirect. BD2412 T 00:08, 6 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 redirect to Alicia Keys. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia: The World Tour[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alicia Keys: One of the sources state that the tour has been postponed. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made. CodeSlashh (talk) 04:09, 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 redirect to Bon Jovi#Bon Jovi: 2020 (2019–present). Sandstein 18:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Tour (Bon Jovi)[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bon Jovi: One of the sources state that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made. CodeSlashh (talk) 04:09, 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 redirect to Camila Cabello. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Romance Tour[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camila Cabello: It's indicated that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made. CodeSlashh (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above comments. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:42, 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 and redirect to Doja Cat. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Pink Tour[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates, this could be easily merged into the album page. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doja Cat: It's indicated that the tour has been cancelled. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tour cancelled so redirect Until any progress has been made. CodeSlashh (talk) 04:08, 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 redirect to Björk. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Björk Orchestral[edit]

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

This tour has absolutely no scheduled dates. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NTOURS. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons above. The tour actually has rescheduled dates but considering the climate it would be better to create it once it starts and receives more coverage and secondary sources. --Fabrictii (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Björk: The tour has been rescheduled at later dates. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:51, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minas Morgul (album)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Of the sources I can find, the sputnikmusic review [15] is clearly tagged as "user review", only staff and emiritus reviews from that website are RS per WP:MUSICRS. metal-archives.com is not an RS per WP:ALBUMAVOID. For the Metal Storm entry, WP:MUSICRS states "Only staff review from 2009 onward are usable, don't use guest reviews recognizable by a tag, which fail WP:USERG", and the review on that page for this album is from 2007, so not useable. After that, you get into myspace, bandcamp, etc. Taking this here instead of a bold redirect to the band page because the I don't speak the relevant language for Austria, where the album was originally released. Honestly, I think the only reason this page exists is that it is Middle-earth related, apparently in the past, anything tangentially related to LOTR got a free pass (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings (pinball) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gollum: How We Made Movie Magic). Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know nothing of this band, but the German Wikipedia article de:Minas Morgul (Album) lists 16 sources, 5 of them properly archived on Archive.org in the German Wikipedia article, and of the rest at least this interview is in fact available. The band could easily be notable. Of the 5 archived refs, MetalInfo gives it 3/5, a full review.

Of the unarchived refs in the German article, MedienKonverter offers a detailed review of the album and gives it 5/5.

Metal.de reviews it favourably.

SputnikMusic reviews it (in English) as 4.5, claiming "it has earned classic status".

Metal Storm also guest-reviews it in English, awarding it "a perfect 10". I'm not sure if guest reviews confer notability but the overall impression is of an authentic and much-liked 'metal' album of the period.

Bloodchamber is a slightly shorter review; it awards 7.5 points (out of 10, I guess) and finds the music has "an almost meditative character". Each to their own. But given the multiple sources, this must be a Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Chiswick Chap. Its German article is notable. With the sources indicated above, the English article good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Summoning (band): having lots of sources doesn't mean the article is notable, if those sources all fail WP:RS. The two editors above appear to not have read WP:MUSICRS and the nominator stating correctly that the Sputnikmusic source is a user review, which has already been established by consensus is not reliable, and also that the Metal Storm review is invalid. The Tartarean Desire site is a webzine/blog, and moreover it's a primary source interview, so it doesn't convey any independent notability. So that's at least three of the sources above that aren't valid, and it's debatable whether any of the others are anything more than community blogs. In light of this, until it can be established whether any of the sources pass WP:RS, a redirect to the band's article seems to be the best option. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 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 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gbets[edit]

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

promotional article abut a non-notable gambling company with no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:09, 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. czar 05:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Livezey[edit]

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

Academic who does not seem to meet WP:NPROF - very few publications or citations. (He did hold a named chair, but not at a major institution.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sections of this article appear to have been taken verbatim and unacknowledged from a paid obituary in the NY Times. asnac (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the Luce Lecturer position counts as the kind of named professorship that WP:PROF asks for. It's a short-term visiting lecturer job [16], not a position held for years or decades. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep as Worldcat shows 500 plus library holdings so he may be notable as an author but there are big copyright concerns. Earwig tool shows an 85% match with a news website piece that was posted some hours after this was started in December 2007, and it has been suggested it originated from a NYT paid obituary, imv Atlantic306 (talk)
Have just checked the NYT piece and the copying is mainly quotes so thats not so bad Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to meet WP:NPROF, nor does there actually seem to be much independent coverage to demonstrate notability otherwise. Even putting aside copyright concerns, the source mentioned in the discussion is a paid obituary and hence pretty lousy even for WP:V - this is article has basically no actual reliable-source coverage. ~ mazca ^talk 15:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe any of the criteria at WP:NPROF are met and my search did not turn up the significant independent coverage that I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One reasonably well cited edited volume (Public Religion and Urban Transformation: Faith in the City) is not enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, the sourcing is far below the standard for WP:GNG, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boothgate[edit]

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

I could not find any coverage (except mentions in real estate listings, or appearances of the word "Boothgate" in other places) about this street (it is indeed a street). Fails both the overall WP:GNG and the topic specific WP:GEOROAD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable village street: fails as above. Ingratis (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable street; nothing found online. Can always be recreated if sources ever surface to show its signficance. (COI declaration: this is a few miles from where I live). I see no need to even redirect to Heage or Belper. Photo isn't even of the road (see here). Nick Moyes (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if there was something of note to say about the street the village article is not long enough or involved enough to justify splitting off articles on individual streets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heage or Ripley, Derbyshire. Before a recent edit to the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boothgate&diff=959176640&oldid=946767209) it said it was a village -- WP:GEOLAND is the guideline for populated places. http://visionofbritain.org.uk/place/322 mentions it as one of the hamlets in Heage; it is also on Ordnance Survey maps. "Boothgate (hamlet)" and "Boothgate (road)" are mentioned in the Amber Valley Green Belt Review, from November 2018 (https://info.ambervalley.gov.uk/docarc/docviewer.aspx?docguid=fd1d92a989274d988719cb659a3dbf05). Heage is now in the parish of Ripley; the road continues across the boundary into Belper. Peter James (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter James: It said it was a village: that was incorrect (hence why it doesn't say it anymore). The source you give seems to use "hamlet" and "road" to refer to what is essentially the same location (it refers to maps in "Appendix 2", but those are not provided so I can't check). Whatever it is, it fails GNG. Maybe I should have bothered to correct the coordinates in the article. This is the correct location and as you can clearly see it's a street. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and above, fails notability. Nika2020 (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and per above. --Cornellier (talk) 17:39, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Blair Rhemrev[edit]

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

One-time pageant winner, does not pass WP:GNG. Totally non-notable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete state level Teen USA competition winners are not notable. Being the first Indonesian American to win in Illinois in no way adds to her notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ApprenticeFan work 10:28, 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 Speedy deletion by Jimfbleak; promo from undisclosed paid editor

Grin Hornet[edit]

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

Promotional article created by an account that matches the name of the subject's manager. There is a credible claim of significance (he has apparently won some awards), and the text isn't quite G11-promotional, but the sourcing is lacking - it's currently sourced exclusively to YouTube, and I can't find any coverage in independent reliable sources, so seems to fail GNG and NMUSIC GirthSummit _(blether) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. creffett (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I thought about speedying this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak, well, if we're assessing the article on its merits, I didn't think that it quite fit into any of the criteria. However, given that there is clearly no sourcing to establish notability, and the author (who seems to be the subject's manager) has been blocked for promo, I would not be disturbed of you wanted to decided to go with your first instinct... GirthSummit _(blether) 21:11, 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 11:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Keshav[edit]

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

This is the third time this biography of a non-notable administrator has been created by an WP:SPA, by Akash2208 (talk · contribs), Ramsingh21194 (talk · contribs) and now Kakuincity (talk · contribs). It's no more than a CV and reeks of UPE. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom; the refs just don't demonstrate notability. Ingratis (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. It is high time we created a minimum number of edits a user has to make before they can create a new article. New users are tempted to create new articles on new subjects but usually have to little grasp of notability guidelines and create articles on subjects not justified. My first article I created was deleted, and I think that was baiscally my first edit. It was on Phoebe Whitmore Carter (Woodruff) who considering how heavily she is mentioned in both volume 1 and Volume 2 of Saints:A History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might merit an article. Currently she is redirected to the article on her husband, but a seperate article, especially considering that one of her letters was published in an anthology might be justifieiable, especially considering there is a desire to have better coverage of women. Woodruff was also a key figure in sufferage and protesting the unjust outside colonialist oppresion of the residents of Utah Territory. When I first created the article back in 2006 some of the now extant sources of secondary coverage on Woodruff did not yet exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 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 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Kumar Gupta[edit]

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

A non-notable film director, producer, composer and lyricist with so many claims to notability but there are no independent sources to back them up. GSS ^💬 09:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 09:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 09:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 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. Sandstein 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Michiel, Co-Lord of Serifos[edit]

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

Likely non-notable, coverage I have found from secondary sources only seem to be trivial mentions. Lordship does not necessarily indicate notability—WP:POLITICIAN only presumes notability for politicians who have held international, national, or state/province–wide office, of which Serifos as a municipality is not. 17jiangz1 (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article, which was created 11 years ago, does not have enough information to be useful to readers. The only date in the article is the year of his marriage, not when he was born or died. The article says that he was "co-lord of Serifos", but the article Serifos says nothing about the island having been governed by lords or co-lords. If he was a co-lord, presumably he must have served alongside another co-lord, but the other co-lord's name is not given here. The article says that Giovanni Michiel "married in 1424 the daughter of Niccolo Crispo from Negropont". But Niccolo Crispo's ten children are mentioned in the article about him, and each of his daughters is mentioned there as marrying someone else -- not Giovanni Michiel. The article says that after Michiel's first wife died, he married "the daughter of another Euboean feudatory" -- with no indication of who that was. I realize that information about 15th century people may be in short supply, but, for example, the article about Michiel's purported father-in-law Nicholas Crispo, Lord of Syros at least provides a date of birth, date of death, and the name of his wife. This is an article about a person with similar social status, from the same era and same geographic area, but it has none of those pieces of information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90:. The article list as its source Karl Hopf's, Veneto-Byzantinische Analekten (1859) p. 77; in fact it is a summary of what Hopf writes (which is not much either). Obviously "Giovanni" was a member of the Michieli (in plural), the Venetian patrician family it:Michiel, "which contributed three doges to Venice" in 11th-12th cent. (Kenneth M. Setton, A History of the Crusades: The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East, p. 434). Hopf provides info about many members of the family involved in the Archipelago, and describes how "Giovanni II." Michiel after an unhappy incident with Giovanni delo Cavo (John de lo Cavo; note that usually several Giovannis from those days are known as "Johns" in English historiography) set foot on Serifos (p.75). "Our" Giovanni, "Giovanni IV." (cf. p. 77) was son of "Allesundro Michieli" and he was -according to Hopf's narration- "Mithesitzer der Insel", co-owner of the Isle of Serifos. Hopf continues by referring to a relation with the "duke family of Naxos" thru his (first) marriage with the daughter of "Nicolo Crispo of Negroponte", and then, after the death of her, he married another woman, from Euboea, perhaps a daugher of Nicolaos Protimos (Νικόλαος Προθυμός = the last archbishop of Athens under Latin rule). "Giovanni IV." died childless in Negreponte (see Chalcis), Euboea. That's all we get to know about him from Hopf. I don't know how accurate is all that -we need a modern reliable source on the subject. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There might be a case for an article on the medieval lords of Serifios, possibly listing them in the article on the island. The question is whether being lord of this island is enough for notability. I compare this with peerages in England, where there is a list article for every peerage, but not for the lordship of every manor. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my previous comment, and per User's Peterkingiron point above. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:32, 3 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 speedy keep. Nom withdrawn, and the only ~~keep~~ delete !vote is a copy-cat of the nom by a very curious account indeed. (non-admin closure) ——Serial^# 09:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Volpi (philosopher)[edit]

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

The only source on the entry is a tiny obituary, fails GNG and ONEEVENT. Not HASPOT after searched on regular engines. Ixocactus (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ixocactus (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I confirm Ixocactus contribution: fails GNG and ONEEVENT. Not HASPOT after searched on regular engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdlp10 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Alexdlp10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Sources include:

an online biography at Istituto Veneto di Science Lettere ed Arti
a book about Volpi: Ángel Xolocotzi, La aventura de interpretar: los impulsos filosóficos de Franco Volpi, México: Eón, 2011
a festschrift: Francisco de Lara López, Entre fenomenología y hermenéutica: in Memoriam Franco Volpi, Madrid, Plaza y Valdés, 2011.
another one: Giovanni Gurisatti, Antonio Gnoli, Franco Volpi. Il pudore del pensiero, Morcelliana, 2019.
a conference about him: Franco Volpi interprete del pensiero contemporaneo, Atti dell'incontro internazionale di studio, Padova, 19 Novembre 2009, Vicenza, Accademia Olimpica, 2012
another conference about him: Ricordando Franco Volpi filosofo: 04.10.1952-14.04.2009, Atti dell'Incontro internazionale del 24 Aprile 2010, Lavarone, Comune di Lavarone, 2017

On that basis, I'd have said this was probably a Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has published quite a lot. Based on the other language wikipedia's, cross language sources, I would say there is enough for GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chiswick Chap's list of book sources is convincing. Also there are plenty of reviews of his books on JSTOR, enough to pass WP:AUTHOR: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After the many good sources provided above I think that I made a mistake. Thanks for patience. I will put these sources on entry. Ixocactus (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very good of you, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 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 Hillel International#History. czar 05:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Texas A&M Hillel[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. There are not enough reliable, independent, in-depth sources which cover this student group in detail. User:Namiba 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. "oldest Hillel Foundation organization in the United States" is a specific claim of notability of this among the many student-organizations on this campus and the many campus branches of this parent organization. However, I don't think there is enough encyc about this article to ever be more than a stub. There's lots here now that should probably be removed as unencyclopediac details at best, promotional fluff at worst. Some of the independent refs are mere passing mention and most of the refs are not independent (and only support in-my-view-unencyc content anyway). Potential merge targets are Texas A&M University and History of the Jews in Brazos County, Texas, with redirect to...probably the school and cross-links between those two targets. DMacks (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Article-history note: Was recently PRODded by Namiba, which I disputed because there was the claim of apparent notability sufficient to merit a full discussion. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Hillel International Most such campus organizations do not merit a standalone article, but the claim as oldest Hillel organization is a credible claim of notability, but the scope and breadth of sourcing need work. If not kept, I would redirect to the article for the parent organization (Hillel International), where the Texas A&M "chapter" is already listed, with a source. Alansohn (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has 27 sources, and even if 9 are from the organization' website, that still leaves 18 sources. That says something, IMHO. If not kept, then redirect to Hillel International as suggested by Alansohn. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is one independent source on the page which covers the group in any type of detail. The number of self-published or university-published sources does not contribute to notability per WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 13:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the oldest of something isn't enough if reliable sources have not chosen to reward this claim to fame with any coverage. We could mention in the Hillel article (or in Judaism in the US, in Texas?, whatever) that this was the first one founded, but if the independent reliable sources aren't there, they aren't there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hillel International per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. There is too much primary and not nearly enough reliable, independent significant coverage to merit a WP:SPINOFF article. The basic outline can be readily explained in the parent. StonyBrook (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. I agree with the editors who note there is not enough third-party coverage to justify a standalone article. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:12, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damon (novel)[edit]

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

No reviews that I can find and written by an obscure, redlinked author, so this novel fails WP:NBOOK. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a GNG fail. Java Hurricane 07:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 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. There are some sources, but I think there's is c9nsensus that those are ot sufficient for GNG Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foysal Ahmed Fahim[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer. Not every 18-year-old who kicks a ball in a formal game is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no international caps yet = too soon for an article. Giant Snowman 18:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG with significant coverage of his national team call-up. I'm also quickly finding a lot of routine (non-GNG) English coverage of him one, two, three that spell his first name as 'Faisal' rather than 'Foysal' - so perhaps this article should be moved to Faisal Ahmed Fahim. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More time for further discussion needed, there seem to be at least two sources in the article which could indicate GNG due to their length, but language barrier is making things difficult
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:FOOTYN, we in WP:FOOTY generally keep players who are playing in country's top league, actually help us in keeping records properly. Though its a stub now, but don't see a problem, have a scope of expanding. Drat8sub (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, please do not disinform the voters. We in NFOOTY generally keep players from fully-pro league, regardless of the level. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disinform ?? I think that's what you are doing, not me. Keep players from fully-pro league, oops !! BlameRuiner, Bangladesh Premier League (football) is the top most professional league of Bangladesh. Shall I assume that you never heard of Bangladesh. Countries' top leagues are generally professional leagues only and the winners/runners-up often play in continental level. Drat8sub (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - League calling itself Professional is not enough for it to actually be fully-professional. Please read the list of leagues that are assessed by FOOTY project as fully-pro here: WP:FPL. Bangladeshi league is not fully-pro, as about 50 other top level leagues. --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yup, A project that cannot define, what is a fully professional league? I've gone through WP:FPL project much before I place my comment. Secondly, this also shows the clubs are paying or trying to pay the salary in pandemic also, no doubt in normal time they use to pay salary. Drat8sub (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scrapes though WP:GNG there is coverage in Bengali Language and subject has received a national callup and won a Golden boot ,subject is 18 years and currently playing see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FOOTY, and I think fails WP:GNG except locally.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "locally" User:Ortizesp? There's national media coverage - and what does "local" mean in a city of over 20 million people? Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does not fail WP:FOOTY, as I've previously mentioned, per WP:FOOTYN, played in professional league and competitive fixtures between professional clubs. Drat8sub (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - This league is listed at WP:FPL#Top level leagues which are not fully professional as not fully professional. If you have proof otherwise, you need to provide it User:Drat8su - otherwise there's no debating that it fails FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nfitz, I know it has listed, but upon what criteria, the project listed without defining the most important point, "what is a fully professional league?" Am I missing here anything else? Let me know. Drat8sub (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Drat8sub I mentioned the criteria in the other thread - "the players on all teams are full-time paid players". i.e. they don't have other jobs on the side. Are there references that support this? Though it's moot here, as this one meets GNG Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Well FOOTYN clearly says, for league notability, leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are generally notable. I don't understand why the "fully" professional even become so important here when BPL champions/runners up are playing at the continental level. For salary thing I've mentioned above in the other discussion under my initial comment. The whole wikipedia is full of many european 2nd tier league players if I am not wrong, and here we are discussing if to keep it or not, a player who is playing in his country's premier league and which passes significant coverage. Drat8sub (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        But User:Drat8sub, WP:FOOTYN#Player notability clearly says The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. The criteria in use for the last decade is at WP:NFOOTY and says Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable. Second tier leagues are often fully professional in some countries - even fourth tier leagues occasionally. The criteria is clear - it may not be fair, and it surely has WP:BIAS, but it is clear - so arguing that the player plays in the top league in the country get's no where. You either need to provide references that GNG is met (which I believe is the case for this particular player), or that the league is actually fully professional (which means the players on all teams are full-time, and don't have other employment). Nfitz (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real experience yet and certainly fails NFOOTY. Perhaps draftify, but I would rather delete. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:55, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Okoye[edit]

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

~~non notable nigerian model. No indepth coverage anywhere. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has enough reliable and published sources from top Nigerian News outlets such as The Guardian (Nigeria), This Day (newspaper), The Punch, Independent Nigeria (Lagos newspaper), Vanguard (Nigeria) and so on, these can seen in the following (1), (2), (3), (4), (5). The subject won a National Beauty pageant Miss Polo Nigeria and also represented Nigeria at an international Beauty pageant Miss Polo International, 2019 edition where she was placed top 5 and also crowned Miss Polo Africa from the Pageatry.(6), I might come off bias being the author of the page but I think the subject is notable enough, I also created a page for a subject with similar notability Olutosin Araromi and there wasn't any issue. So please look into this objectively and let me know what you think.--Archmedhis (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:@User:Archmedhis Wikipedia is not a news site. WP:NOTNEWS. Your sources are just small 2 line mentions of the news that she won the Miss polo in Nigeria and will represent Nigeria in Dubai. All sources even use similar words. This cannot be used to base an article on. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC) struck sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model and beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 06:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Plenty of reliable sources.BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 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 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NFINIT[edit]

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

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

Advertising company, Editors all have COIs, do not see notability. Agreed with DrMies on AfD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a 2nd Find-sources above for AIS Technology Services which was the company's name until recently. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly an article with a history of promotional editing, though that could probably be avoided using page protection. I have tried to neutralise the present version of the company history and added a reference, albeit one which would fall under "brief announcements, and routine coverage" trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. As to whether the firm is notable, searches find further routine announcement coverage, for example around the company refinancing in 2013 [34] (not mentioned in the article text), but neither under previous or current names am I finding the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL with primary sources indicated in the article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:56, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adeeb Ahmed[edit]

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

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

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

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

non notable rich guy. Article is full of passing mentions and tries to COATRACK the lulu group, even though is just one of the managing directors, and not the owner/majority stack holder. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also it seems that the creator is a paid editor/COI editor. Java Hurricane 07:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adeeb Ahamed is a billionaire business among top 10 richest in India. He is in the mainline news on a consistent basis. He was recently awarded the prestigious gold card award by the government of UAE given only to very few people in the world. He is the managing director of Lulu financial group. He co-owns the largest retail network in India and Middle East. He is a very notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.44.121 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing a few mainline news citations centered on Mr Adeeb Ahmed for your reference https://www.arabianbusiness.com/lists/408686-indian-rich-list-2018-14-adeeb-ahamed https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/297987 https://www.timeskuwait.com/news/gold-card-granted-to-adeeb-ahamed-md-of-lulu-financial-group/ http://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay.aspx?newsID=704009 https://www.theweek.in/news/biz-tech/2019/06/03/Tablez-Lulu-Group-retail-arm-aims-to-make-a-mark-in-sports-market.html https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/nri-businessman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kbf-board-120050300624_1.html https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2020/may/06/uae-bizman-adeeb-ahamed-appointed-trustee-of-kochi-biennale-foundation-2139583.html https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kerala/lulu-financial-groups-adeeb-ahamed-pledges-rs-1-crore-to-2018-kochi-muziris-biennale-5290294/ https://www.arabianbusiness.com/business/425981-investing-in-the-future-adeeb-ahamed-managing-director-of-lulu-financial-group https://gulf-times.com/story/635428 https://www.thearabianstories.com/2019/07/05/meet-the-top-indian-business-leaders-in-the-middle-east/ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/turning-tables-how-adeeb-ahamed-of-the-lulu-group-is-foraying-further-with-food-toys-and-fashion/articleshow/60136087.cms https://www.arabianbusiness.com/banking-finance/443348-abu-dhabi-stimulus-package-to-mitigate-panic-says-lulu-financial-boss https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/lulu-group-to-expand-retail-arm-tablez-consolidate-hotels-in-india/article30819855.ece https://www.theweek.in/news/biz-tech/2019/06/03/Tablez-Lulu-Group-retail-arm-aims-to-make-a-mark-in-sports-market.html

You can get many more of these as he controls a major part of the economy of the Middle East and India.

Delete possible undisclosed paid-for spam with no evidence of independent notability. GSS ^💬 18:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete paid for spam with the usual pr puffery as sources. See also Adeeb Ahamed. Praxidicae (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deleted in draft in 2015; had a current draft article, deleted by me in case this is moved to draft: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am a little confused why a person so famous in middle East and India is still non notable. They own the famous Scotland yard hotel in UK. He is also axgold card holder in UAE Thank you for your time. (Kuruvillac (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Also, please do check my edit history, I am not a paid editor. (Kuruvillac (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Respected Admins, i would like to make an observation. I got his spelling wrong which resulted in his mentions in news not showing up in search. I have rectified that. Now news references of him can be seen in search. Sorry cor the inconvenience. (Kuruvillac (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add on to this, despite the noms block, I still strongly stand by my delete comment. Praxidicae (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a WP:NBIO and likely WP:GNG failure. While sources do exist that cover the subject, they lack the quality needed to actually establish the encyclopedic notability of the subject; too many are WP:PRIMARY (articles merely quoting the subject are too common), lack depth, or primarily concern other topics (a WP:NOTINHERITED issue). There is also a seeming lack of sources that put forward a claim to encyclopedic notability for Ahamed or indicate how he is different from his peers - he seems to be a wealthy run-of-the-WP:MILL businessman. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, by considering someone non notable like adeeb ahamed who is daily in the mainline news in middle east and india mostly independent news, are we not setting the bar too high. Kuruvillac (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuurent posts he holds include member of the World Economic Forum's South Asian Regional Strategy Group, gold card visa holder from government of UAE- honor given to select businessmen, and trustee of Kochi Biennale Foundation board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.73.218 (talk) 13:08, 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 no consensus. No valid "delete" opinions remain. Sandstein 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proto.in[edit]

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

~~An event for startups that is not notable in itself. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - sources points to notability within WP:GNG. The nominator was a sock.BabbaQ (talk) 12:18, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outrage (2020 film)[edit]

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

The movie does not meet GNG, all the sources mentioned are non-reliable. This seems to be an Indie film, whose trailer released on the "Movie Creator"'s youtube channel in December 2019. Daiyusha (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Film is an indie with no established actors, company, or distributor. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 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. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid counter-argument to a lack of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Sollars[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to get over WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is to write a substantive and well-sourced article that demonstrates his political significance. But other than stating that he exists, the only other content here is a criminal allegation that has not verifiably resulted in a conviction, and would very likely not be of any enduring importance to get him over the WP:PERP bar even if it had. But merely being charged with a crime is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if the person did not already clear our notability standards, then being charged with a crime that has not led to a conviction is not a notability booster. And there's just one footnote here anyway, which is nowhere close to enough coverage to make a smalltown mayor notable even if it weren't about an as yet untried criminal allegation. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom's analysis: fails both WP:NPOL and WP:CRIM, and the combination of the two doesn't help. Ingratis (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought I had heard of this guy. I live in Detroit, so maybe heard something about the criminal charges on the news. Taylor is not a significant or major area in Metro-Detroit. It is less important than its population would indicate, in that unlike other cities of its size it has few major businesses. We would need a lot more sources to justify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local mayor, even with the allegations in the article. Fails WP:BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Taylor is not necessarily a "smalltown" by Michigan standards, and there are many articles about mayors in Michigan whose entire political career was a mayor of a much smaller city and with less newsworthy information (e.g. Covey, Dempsey, Janke, Kozaren, Wurmlinger). It is not about the notability of Taylor but of the verifiability of Sollars, which has extensive media coverage, albiet a very weak stub article. —Notorious4life (talk) 00:38, 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. czar 05:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Y. Lemelle[edit]

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

Producer of non-notable dramas. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete person not notable and references include IMDb that is not accepted as per WP:IMDB/BLP norms ~Amkgp ✉ 03:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 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. czar 05:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Angel[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:ENT or the WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage about her in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable performer in pornogrpahic productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — 71 movies per this source and she has also received AVN Award for Female Foreign Performer of the Year for her work. However, it fails to reach WP:GNG. I'm not opposed to delete as well. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 09:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC) I change my vote to Delete - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 08:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That book is published by Lulu.com, a self-publishing platform, and porn films can be run up in such large numbers that even PORNBIO excluded that criterion 14 years ago. Now that PORNBIO is gone, the subject needs good sources that can either satisfy WP:GNG/WP:BASIC or verify passing some criterion of WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k:, Thanks for the heads up. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 08:10, 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 close. The creator has withdrawn their deletion request and nobody else has supported deletion. Hut 8.5 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solid (band)[edit]

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

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Joh582 as author requested (WP:CSD#G7). This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. FASTILY 01:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 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. czar 05:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulmus minor 'Corky Cloud'[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, does not appear to have any coverage outside of databases and has zero hits on Google Scholar. Previously nominated for PROD by Mccapra, dePROD by an admin following an objection by the initial editor on the talk page: While accepting that even as a stub, the article is rather thin, I would argue for its retention, simply on the basis that Wikipedia has hitherto maintained a digest of all known elm species and cultivars, past and present. Its existence as a stub is far more likely to prompt additions to create a comprehensive article than its deletion. In response to this objection, I'll say that the deletion nomination is not due to the state of the article, but rather due to the apparent total lack of coverage in secondary sources, reliable or otherwise. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No coverage in secondary reliable sources can be observed/found. Celestina007 (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was the rationale for my PROD. Mccapra (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – cultivars which are not well known and so do not appear in reliable secondary sources can be briefly mentioned or discussed on the relevant species or genus page, but I agree that they should not have their own article. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any independent sources establishing notability. Just being listed in a seed/plant order catalogue doesn't reach the bar for cultivar notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:42, 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. czar 05:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flexmunyboii[edit]

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

Subject of article fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG either. A before search shows him mentioned here but like earlier stated this doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the artist, aside from the link indicated by the nominator. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the nominator and previous voter, I can find no viable media coverage except for that one story. All else to be found are the typical streaming entries and self-promotional sites. Charitably it is too soon for a WP article on this performer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in terms of the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:55, 3 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. Sandstein 10:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just Gammat[edit]

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

Non-notable film, page created by an editor with a history of promo (username matches a film production company), unsourced for five years now, WP:GNG/WP:NFILM failure. The only source I managed to find with any pretense of reliability is a review here, but that review doesn't even have a byline. creffett (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to fail WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Same as Creffett, all I could find was a review in The India Times (not too reliable for sourcing, but fine for a film review AFAIK) and APN news (rather dubious Indian news network). It's very possible there could be Marathi language sourcing to substantiate notability, but I haven't seen any. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:52, 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 WP:SNOW delete. There is no reasonable possibility of this being kept, and WP:BLP concerns militate in favor of prompt disposition. BD2412 T 04:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This is essentially an article on a current news story, and moreover one that raises BLP issues. Not all conspiracy theories deserve their own article, even those endorsed by a President; if we had an article on every false claim advocated by Trump, we'd have thousands of unnecessary articles. This one is sufficiently documented in Joe Scarborough's article; there's no need for a separate page here, and it doesn't seem likely at the time of writing that there's going to be anything more to add to this one. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Clearly meets WP:N standards. Hundreds of sources, including international sources. Very much like Murder of Seth Rich . Unfounded crap, but pushed online.Casprings (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Seth Rich story has had a lot more media attention over the years than this one, though: there's clearly enough there to justify an independent article. If this article developed to the state that one is in, it would be worth keeping, but I don't see that we need it now. Robofish (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is article needs improvement a reason to delete? There are many WP:RS to meet WP:N.Casprings (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it 'needs improvement' - I'm saying that at present, there doesn't seem to be more to add to it, and so no need for a separate article. A separate article can always be recreated in future if this 'story' does turn out to be as enduring, and receive as much attention, as the Rich story did. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument to merge, not to delete.Casprings (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it should be merged then; but it seems to me that the relevant information is already in Scarborough's article (and Mika Brzezinski) so I'm not sure there's anything more to merge here. Robofish (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment may have issues related NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, FORUM. Drat8sub (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some online may posit a conspiracy, Trump just implies murder, title's all wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True - if the article is to be kept, it should also be renamed, since it's not just Trump's theory. But 'Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory' would seem to have even more blatant BLP issues. Robofish (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with "murder allegation"? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should really try to avoid 'allegation' in article titles (though sometimes it's unavoidable). Robofish (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" was avoidable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donald Trump on social media#Comments on Morning Joe hosts or Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory Wikipedia is not news, but redirecting here is a viable alternative to deletion, especially given the (however slim) potential this could develop further notability wise. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regarding the name, I haven't seen anyone suggesting a conspiracy, though some reports are using the term "conspiracy theory". I guess the people who believe this are arguing the autopsy was fake - and that would make this a conspiracy... The theory doesn't originate with Trump, so it shouldn't be termed Donald Trump's anything. It was also raised by Michael Moore and has circulated for almost 20 years. I don't believe that the current title or anything similar would be a useful redirect because it's not a likely search term. Lori Klausutis is a likely search term, but that redirect is being considered for deletion. I don't think there is any point in merging this article. The allegation is already mentioned on several other articles, and there is no point in having a standalone article at this point in time. It is true that Wikipedia has several questionable Trump-related articles such as Bowling Green massacre, but we don't need another one.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Random thoughts This has been added to Joe Scarborough with a load of BLP problems. I’ve tried to clean it up, although I don’t know if it should be mentioned at all there. I linked to this article there to trim the text. Yes, if this article is kept, the title should be modified. I wouldn’t have created it so soon. But, it may be required at some point. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need an article every time a well-documented pathological liar trumps his pants. Not News. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess I will WP:IAR. Additionally WP:NOTNEWS we are not here to print publish everything WP:NOT. Lightburst (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long standing consensus that this death is not notable and content fork from scarborough.. Jimbo weighed in at the time with consideration for the deceased's spouse and sensationalism and conspiracy nature of the allegation. ConstantPlancks (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory, though it's unlikely that someone would search for that title). Just another bit of malicious screwiness from the nutjob in chief. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the article, Twitter says that "statements by the President, even false ones, are newsworthy". Possibly, but false statements by Trump aren't Wikipedia-worthy other than en masse. This one already has a paragraph in the too-shyly named but otherwise good article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, which is certainly all it needs. I don't see much need for a redirect. Bishonen | tålk 08:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - First, this isn't exclusive to Trump. Michael Moore and others have been bringing this up for decades. Second, there's nothing here that can't be telescoped (with sources) to Scarborough's article as a paragraph at most. -- Veggies (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The content is already covered in Joe Scarborough and Donald Trump on social media. No need to try to redirect this unsearchable title. StonyBrook (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NOTNEWS and to stop compounding the widower's pain. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Include it to the List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump and redirect there (it's better to keep the history of this page though). It should not be kept a standalone page because it is already included in "Veracity of statements" page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Casprings. BS of course, but appropriate to cover under our rules. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7569:29DF:EAB6:121E (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. Just because something gets broad coverage in news does not make it notable. This can receive a balanced mention in the articles on Trump and Scarborough, although I am not sure it is even worth mentioning in the latter. There is no reason to create a seperate article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though it is covered in major media, it is fairly recent and hence can be addressed as a section within the Scarborough article. In the future, if the conspiracy theory continues to be prominent, say six months or a year in the future, it may deserve its own article. Noleander (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Jack Upland observes above, this is not Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. It's been around for decades. Moreover, the longstanding Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory has not been deemed worthy of its own page, nor has it been added to the list of conspiracy theories. This new page, specific to Donald Trump, flunks both Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NOTNEWS. NedFausa (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Just because a conspiracy theory gets in the news, it is not worthy of being a Wikipedia article. It does not meet the requirements set by WP:N. However, it may be best to merge it into Joe Scarborough as a section. As Jack Upland mentioned earlier, this conspiracy theory has been around for more than a decade, and it is not Donald Trump’s idea. Therefore, it has to do with Joe Scarborough and NOT Donald Trump.

Merging into Joe Scarborough is a terrible idea. That BLP is being carefully edited to, among other things, avoid naming Lori Klausutis—something that is done repeatedly and for no good reason in Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. Delete, yes. Merge, no! NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete waste of space, and the origin of the conspiracy is not attributable to Trump, that appears to be down to Markos Moulitsas and Michael Moore. Acousmana (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I'm not seeing anything right now that warrants this topic having its own article. Other articles can perfectly summarize this without leaving out a lot of important information. Love of Corey (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a perfect world we'd be able to have a Death of Lori Klausutis article ... there are some good questions about the autopsy and its finding that the media is treating as dispositive in this case, as well as Scarorough's behavior after the body was discovered (For the record, as I've said elsewhere online, I do not think he killed her (he couldn't have) or even that he had her killed. But I think it's still possible someone did, and that Scarborough may have known, or thought he knew, something about the death that he didn't want getting out). But no reliable source has ever discussed these issues. When one does, we can have it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 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.

[1] ttps://www.vice.com/en_us/article/exayxp/11842-revision-4

[2] ttps://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ghogha-trotsar-regimen-i-iran

[3] ttps://www.bbc.com/persian/iran/2010/02/100207_l11_sweden_hiphop_music.shtml

[4] ttps://setarehmalekzadeh.com/tagged/about

[5] ttps://www.svd.se/gogha-rappar-for-frihet

[6] ttps://www.sydsvenskan.se/2010-04-14/hon-kan-inte--vara-tyst-langre

[7] ttps://www.dn.se/arkiv/kultur/hiphopfestival-ger-hopp-for-iran/

[8] ttps://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=478&artikel=4554660

[9] ttps://magasinetnovell.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/samhallsfaran-ghogha-flydde-iran-for-musiken/?fbclid=IwAR37cZ3eHX6y2hOfHMgqSSiQWmHe_iNzApAnPHnUsN9FoLpWSLHLsxiVbCo

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]