Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 May 4 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows filmed in New York City[edit]

List of television shows filmed in New York City (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)

There is a similar page called List of television shows set in New York City. I can't tell the difference between the pages possibly a content fork. For these reasons, I think the article should be deleted. Interstellarity (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly many shows set in New York City will also be filmed there. But many are filmed elsewhere (e.g. What We Do in the Shadows (TV series)). If the lists are insufficiently distinct to justify separate pages, that can be solved by merging per WP:ATD. pburka (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is an obvious difference between "List of shows filmed in New York City" and "List of shows set in New York City". There are tons of shows that are filmed in Vancouver and Atlanta, standing in for New York. I'm not going to vouch for the quality of this article or its sources, but if the nomination rationale is that there's no difference between the two lists, then that is obviously incorrect. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a good topic for a list and the lists are DIFFERENT. I have wondered about such a list a few times in just the last month. Needs a bit of work--i think there were more shows in the early days of TV than were on the list--but it's not bad right now. I don't know that I can explain to the nominator the difference between a location and a setting... One is real and people were there vs. the other is a fictional element... The lists being different should demonstrate that this list is not a content fork. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is clearly a seperate list from those set in the city. Several shows set in New York City (I Love Lucy comes to mind) were actually filmed in California. On the other hand there are TV shows set in fictional places, so those could be in categories like this. Lastly, some shows never explicitly say where they are set.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The lists seem different per obvious reasoning that you can film in one place and have the story set elsewhere. That's the only reason mentioned in the nom and the only reason argued so far. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarebi Alebiosu[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. She has founded several non-notable companies and lacks in-depth coverage in secondary sources. A Google search of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. The article is highly promotional and reads like a resume.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — it’s a promotional piece quite alright & I don’t see GNG satisfied here. @Kaizenify, it’s good thing you out here trying to bridge the gender gap & that but creating articles on non notable women isn’t the way forward tbh. Celestina007 (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject fails WP:GNG and has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Delete - Of the sources cited on the page, one could find the bellanaija source somewhat useful. Additionally, I found max1023fm listing her as a nominee for an award, and this pressreader source that I cannot figure out. If someone could figure out where that pressreader source came from I would appreciate it. I don't think the subject quite meets the notability guidelines yet. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, fails WP:GNG.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Disregarding the SPA IP !vote, which states no policy-based argument, consensus is clear. BD2412 T 18:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viswe–mi[edit]

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

I cannot verify that this ethnic group exists. There is not a single hit in Google or Google Books for this name.

None of the sources in List of people of Viswe–mi descent make any mention of ethnicity.

– Thjarkur (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. By the way the article creator removed the AfD template from the article and I’ve restored it. They have added two alleged sources that are unsearchable and frankly look ridiculous. The same editor created List of people of Viswe–mi descent from which they also removed the AfD template. This has four sources, none of which mentions the term ‘Visme-mi’. I’ve tried searching possible variants (vishwe mi, viswe naga) and found nothing. The new editor who created this has already had a block for sockpuppetry and a string of creations deleted. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Irrespective of the creator's past brush with wikilaw, this appears to be an honest misunderstanding. In South Asia anyone who lives in a certain place is ethnically called by that place name with an added I. Pakistan-->Pakistani, Hindustan-->Hindustani, America-->Amriki, so on and so forth. These are people living in Viswema, so they will undoubtedly be called Viswemi, but they are such a small minority that no one has cared to write anything about them. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per all of the above Spiderone 11:51, 5 May 2020 (UTCT)
  • keep let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. We shouldn't be deleting whole pages on ethnic groups. This page can certainly be improved.80.7.57.141 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly this page can be improved, let's not move to the point where we are deleting pages on ethnic groups we're not familiar with. Abstrakt (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this page can be improved, since there are no reliable sources to verify that this ethnic group exists let alone is notable Spiderone 14:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. g5able as the creation of a sock of Wesleyner7. The only keep votes were from socks. It has the malodour of UPE spam. Cabayi (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Guiribitey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Camila Guiribitey (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)

Paid-for-spam with no claim of notability. Previous AFD consensus was influenced by SPA/sock[1] and [2]. References are paid PR. Ninjaediator (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sock or anything, I've requested the checkuser to check my ip. 2019KB (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Ninjaediator (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteThe origins of the creation of this article are such we must delete it if our policies have any menaing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will not close this debate. MER-C 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of her coverage is in spanish news publishers but still she passes General Notability Guideline. 2019KB (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - She has been significantly featured in El Nuevo Diario (República Dominicana), laneta.com (in Spanish), CiberCuba (in Spanish), Hoy Digital (in Spanish) making her notable. 2019KB (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've added new reference from https://cdn.com.do/ She is quite notable in latin america with over 1.7 million followers.

There are other sources too of her attending latin's grammy and her pretty luxurious life but I haven't added because I'm not sure whether if it would be perfect for Wikipedia or not

She was invited on latin grammy: https://cdn.com.do/2019/11/20/camila-guiribitey-dice-que-sintio-mezcla-de-emociones-indescriptible-en-su-primera-vez-en-grammy-latino/ 2019KB (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nom is a sock, Keep voter is a Sock, and previuos nomination was hijacked by socks. Whe! ok!. The article is still deletable, nothing to show that she can pass GNG.MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that the sources proffered are inadequate to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colive[edit]

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

No claim of notability except routine funding coverage and paid PR. Ninjaediator (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will not close this debate. MER-C 18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from article creator: Not sure if this is the right place for me to put forth my view, I feel this page is notable based on the news article which was published,this company got promising brand of the year award which was published in zimbabwenews as well,could I provide the reliable source to support notabily criteria for the teams perusal Glittershield (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At a deletion discussion please post links to any sources you think support your case. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,The source which I found that supports notability are as follows, In the year 2019 this company got promising brand of the year award by Economic times.

Kindly let me know if I need to provide any more details. Thank youGlittershield (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, awards don't establish notability unfortunately. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable run of the mill startup. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, Just not the awards this subject has significant news coverage in independent reliable sources which I found on google, some of the links are mentioned below

Thanks, Glittershield (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your just ref bombing the same exact sources above that already didnt work. Which isn't helpful. Give it up. Seriously. Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glittershield You need to read WP:PAID Yourmasterishere (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source which I had provided is different from the second one the contents in the article is completely different, I am not trying to promote this company but I do think they are notable. Rest I leave it to the team to decide. Thanks, Glittershield (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glittershield you seem to be engaging into WP:BLUDGEONYourmasterishere (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Conspicuous case of WP:MILL, nothing notable is being offered by the subject. All refs fail WP:INDEPENDENT & WP:RELIABLE as they are WP:MADEUP, WP:FAKE & WP:HOAX. The subject has entered into what is called as Chain Marketing wherein a customer pays an amount to a main news group which publishes some coverage on the customer and then that coverage is replicated by subsequent "chain" entities which have a tie up arrangement with the main company. This model is resorted to by PR agents to demonstrate that their client has wide coverage across the media which is not the reality. Such kind of absurdity is observable by evaluating the title, date and time of publication and the disclaimers posted. The same has been elaborated below:
[1], [2], [3] and [4] all have the same title and all were published on January 21, 2020. Their time of publication is further quite close and all state at the end: This story is provided by NewsVoir. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of this article.. The biggest fact to be noted is that In all the refs, exact text has been plainly replicated in verbatim. How can a genuine media output copy something in an exact manner unless there is some commercial aspect?
[1] even states that: (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.). Similarly, [5] states at the end Disclaimer :- This story has not been edited by Outlook staff and is auto-generated from news agency feeds.
[6] &[7] falls into WP:UNENCYC since it does not provide anything encyclopedic and as mentioned above, its just a case of run of the mill. Similarly, [8] states one thing about the subject that it raised some funding which does not enable it to continue listing here at WP.
[9] is on the industry and not on the subject. [10] is not at all on the subject and purposely added to influence the consensus. Moreover, in the article, first and third references have been duplicated to increase the number of sources. Crystal case of WP:DNTL

References

  1. ^ a b https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/colive-recognized-as-the-promising-brand-of-the-year-by-economic-times-120012100511_1.html
  2. ^ https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/263778994/colive-recognized-as-the-promising-brand-of-the-year
  3. ^ https://www.zimbabwenews.net/news/263778994/colive-recognized-as-the-promising-brand-of-the-year
  4. ^ https://www.aninews.in/news/business/colive-recognized-as-the-promising-brand-of-the-year-by-economic-times20200121131407/
  5. ^ https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/colive-to-expand-in-major-educational-hubs-in-tamil-nadu/1278971
  6. ^ https://archive.siasat.com/news/colive-expand-five-cities-2018-aims-market-throughout-south-india-1335209/
  7. ^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/real-estate/co-living-apps-take-the-sting-out-of-settling-into-a-new-city/story-qgF2YEqrOxTbjYjKdvFytK.html
  8. ^ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/companies/co-living-bucks-realty-slump-as-firms-investors-troop-in/articleshow/72424062.cms
  9. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/homes-and-gardens/why-the-co-living-segment-is-trending/article26675229.ece
  10. ^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/property-/-cstruction/co-living-company-offers-space-to-healthcare-staff/articleshow/75097899.cms
Yourmasterishere (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus - backed by detailed source analyses - both that the sources are inadequate and that salting is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fynd[edit]

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

Not notable enough to pass WP:CORP. References are routine funding news, and local coverage. Some references are user-generated like [3], [4] etc. Ninjaediator (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [5] is not a user-generated reference. Zaubacorp is an Indian business research company and maintains the registration details of all Indian companies. Zauba Corp does not own or has no relationship with any of the companies mentioned on their website Besides, that reference is used to legally identify the bonafide founder of the company, which can be verified anywhere on the Internet. All non-trivial data have come from sources that were independent and secondary in nature. Example: The Financial Express, The Economic Times, Corporate Announcement from Reliance (an established company in India), A book named The Millenials having a registered ISBN number and Smart CEO. Another reference in question [6] has been removed. Other data under 'History' being independent of the subject meets the primary criteria for WP:CORP. The article in question is a start-class article highlighting the company details in an encyclopaedic language.Trinityfire (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Trinityfire (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Ninjaediator (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trinityfire: it merely establishes the fact that the company exists but does not say why it is note worthy to be included. I checked your contribution history out of curiosity and I found some random edits then creating this page which has been deleted previously via AFD. Would you explain with just 60 edit counts, what made you create this article? Ninjaediator (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ninjaediator: Hi, I started with doing minor edits on Wikipedia and I guess that's how most people start. I learnt from other pages, especially the rules and guidelines mentioned on my talk page by a Wiki contributor named Abishe. FYI, I had no role in the AfD process mentioned above. Coming to the question of notability that falls within WP:GNG, I have used data from sources which I have mentioned in my earlier comment, there's a significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. After I submitted this article, it has been edited by other Wikipedia editors too. At the end of the day, a healthy consensus is what I expect. Thank you! Trinityfire (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against recreation. Unambiguously fails NCORP. The articles in the Financial Express and SmartCEO are promotional interviews, where the president of the company says whatever he cares to--newspapers in all countries do this, not just in india, and the material counts for what it really is: PR. The other references are mere notices. They go to show existence, not notability . The previous AfD ended as a delete, not a keep; it was relisted after the socks had appeared; and a Draft version was also deleted twice, once at MfD and once by speedy G11. The editor who moved the draft out of process into mainspace has since been blocked indefinitely for repeatedly doing so. Evenmore important,{{U|Trinityfire, since this is your only article, and since it is written in exactly the format of a press release, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: Hi, I am not a connected contributor and I am not being paid for this article. However, I was an intern at this company several years ago. I have no CoI and I have not been in touch since then. I intended to write several articles including that of a famous astronaut who is not on Wiki because people search for her and want to know about her. I am aware of your action towards this article when it was tagged with a speedy G11. Even before that I had approached you on your talk page, but you might have been busy. Since then, the article is only about the company and its presence in India and none of its products or services. I condemn the act of that editor who moved my AfC article without a proper review. In some way, the AfC process got jeopardized by an idiot and I was willing to work upon the kind suggestions given by a user named Bonadea. However, it got deleted without a contest or a chance for me to improve. I don't want to promote this company or any of my future subjects. Let there be a fair consensus is all I ask.Trinityfire (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will not close this debate. MER-C 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete&SALT or we will be doing this all year long. Fails NCORP. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & salt I agree with the other users who gave reasons why it should be salted. It's clearly not notable and there's no reason to do this again. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Listing a few sources that are neither PR, nor any passing mentions [8], [9] The references don't seem like a company-pitched information. In India, the company seems to come into the picture everytime big players like Amazon and Flipkart get a coverage, check [10] I am not sure if non-notable companies get noticed among other e-commerce players. Trinityfire (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; promotional undertones which is typical when 1/2 of the article is focused on funding. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above discussions. - Hatchens (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 05:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noosphere Ventures[edit]

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

Promotional paid-for-spam with nothing notable. Ninjaediator (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant UPE spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cant see any reason to keep this. Mccapra (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will not close this debate. MER-C 18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly advert article and nothing notable about the company. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even a blocked sock is right twice a day... ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nupur Agarwal[edit]

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

Not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Created by COI editor without disclosure. References are unrelaible. Ninjaediator (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The new way of getting yourself onto Wikipedia as a teenager appears to be to set up an NGO and claim to be an entrepreneur/activist. Mccapra (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will not close this debate. MER-C 18:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most probably paid for spam. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 11:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Bluue Bell (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Double Octopus[edit]

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

Not notable enough to pass WP:NCORP. Sources are user-generated. Written with the intention of promoting it. Ninjaediator (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Company is notable. Reliable sourcing has been added and I am sure the article can be further improved with a little effort. Subject is of global significance. No reason to delete.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Featured in a PR laden article and a couple of listicles. nothing to show lasting coverage. Fails NCORP. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are pretty par for the course with AfDs and don't really matter. If you really want the article to be kept, instead of wasting everyone's time with useless crap go find some sources that actually meet the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is about a company that brings new technology to the market, with plenty of objective mentions in local and global media, several awards and nominations, and some serious backing from the likes of SONY and KDDI. I honestly don't like whataboutism but take a look at the average company stub on Wikipedia... Ortamnu (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Ortamnu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Most of the sources within the article fail the criteria for establishing notability. References are either based entirely on funding announcement(s) (failing WP:ORGIND) or promotion by the VC (failing WP:ORGIND - connected source). Two articles might meet the criteria. The first is an article commenting on their quirky company name but also includes information on the company. This is a weak reference but in my opinion meets the criteria. The most compelling reference is from Gartner Research and the table of contents shows that they were written about in detail. Analyst reports are specifically mentioned as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. I also note that at least one other technology analyst firm, Forrester Research, has also provided coverage of the company. As such there are sufficient references and the topic passes WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Last (Motsetserepa)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and would stay as a permastub. Lettlerhello 21:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 05:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Courtney[edit]

Stephen Courtney (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)

Highly promotional paid-for-spam article with no claim of notability. Ninjaediator (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tbh this looks G11able. It's entirely promotional. Natureium (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly promotional / poorly sources / likely written by a sock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails PROMO, cannot meet GNG. I agree that G11 could be used. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)


Feel Good on a Wednesday[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines in WP:NSONG. Author contested PROD. Article was originally a redirect due to lack of notability and should be reverted back to a redirect. SanAnMan (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to The Cissy. Article was originally a redirect, and it could've been redirected instead of AfD'ed. Kori (@) 01:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BD2412 T 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tap4Fun[edit]

Tap4Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to meet WP:CORP. Ninjaediator (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a game, nothing major about that, nothing to seperate it from millions of other such games. Fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MistyGraceWhite, while I agree with you it should be deleted, it's not a game, Tap4Fun is a developer, not a game. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac15 03:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayba Al Hashemi[edit]

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

Not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. The claim that she is the female engineer to assume the position of CEO is unfounded. Ninjaediator (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely paid-for spam. MER-C 18:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Paid for spammy article which could/should be G11 CSD. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is very close to "no consensus" as the policy arguments for keeping are not great. Let's see some improvement. BD2412 T 21:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homochitto, Issaquena County, Mississippi[edit]

Homochitto, Issaquena County, Mississippi (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)

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parks Place, Mississippi, this is a routine plantation, and claims of being a “ghost town” and “settlement” are unsupported. As one of Stephen Duncan’s *fifteen* plantations, page can be redirected/merged there. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Reywas92: Could you please be specific, do you want the article redirected, or merged? Also, how is the claim that this is a "ghost town" and "settlement" not supported? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    [11] says freedmen continued to work at several of Duncan's plantations, though they have different planters by then. I don't really see anything worth merging to Stephen_Duncan#Antebellum_career so a redirect is fine but edits are welcome there. That and [12] call it a plantation and map [13] labels it just like neighboring plantations Holly Ridge (mentioned in the freedmen contracts) and Clover Hill, differently from actual settlement of Mayersville, Mississippi. Where does "ghost town" come from??? GNIS is not reliable (but sure, this was a "place" that was "populated" just like all those ranches). Its source is "Mississippi River Commission. Flood Control and Navigation Maps of the Mississippi River: Cairo, Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana. 19th ed. Vicksburg, Miss., 1951. map 30" which I cannot find online (my physical library has it but can't access that now unfortunately), but the 1939 topo shows nothing. Reywas92Talk 00:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Plantation fails GNG. I removed the "settlement" and "ghost town" claims which failed verification. –dlthewave ☎ 03:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In 1860, 7,244 slaves were held in Issaquena County, making up 92.5% of the county's population, the highest concentration anywhere in the United States. Of 115 slave owners, 39 held 77 or more slaves. This shameful historical fact meant that "home" for the residents of Issaquena County was a large plantation which had infrastructure similar to a small community. Sources affirming this was a slave plantation include [14][15]. What part of WP:GEOLAND is not met? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My god, what part of GEOLAND is met? A plantation is not a town! We already know this is a plantation so what the hell are additional sources affirming this fact needed for? These source aren't even remotely significant coverage. There's no automatic notability for plantations. Somehow the mansion + slave quarters of every one of those 115 planters now suddenly needs its own article since a cotton farm is now equivalent to a town? Perhaps Issaquena_County,_Mississippi#Slavery should list these plantations but this shameful fact does not warrant articles for each of the 46,000 that once existed. Reywas92Talk 19:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stephen Duncan was the largest slaveowner in Mississippi, with over 800 slaves in Issaquena County. So this plantation essentially was a small town. Could use some expansion, but I think this is notable. A redirect to Duncan's article would be preferable to delete. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Duncan had thirteen plantations in Issaquena County [16], so can you, maybe, you know, I don't know, kind of weird to ask in an AFD, find significant coverage that refers specifically to the plantation at hand rather than make up nonsense? What are you going to expand the article with, a hand wave? A college dorm, or a campground, or a military barrack, or a prison, or a housing development or subdivision, or yes a plantation can have the population of a small town, but that doesn't make them one. Reywas92Talk 23:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GEOPLACE, and even if it doesn't, the sources covering it as a plantation get it past GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources are significant coverage????????????? This is not a town and Geoland does not apply! Reywas92Talk 19:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can ask everyone that until you're blue in the face, doesn't make you right. Smartyllama (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I’m not joking, where are the significant sources? I’m asking a legitimate question and you’re laughing me off, so freaking rude, as if ignoring it makes you right. How does this pass GNG? Does every one of the thousands of former plantations count as a town and have automatic notability? I’m not aware of anything in List of plantations in the United States being considered a “town” or “ghost town” and you are making a radical, baseless assertion. Reywas92Talk 00:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per geoland; this was a recognized populated place. Sure, almost all the inhabitants were slaves. We've done plenty to wipe out their history, why do we need to wipe this article out?Jacona (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The GNIS is not “legal recognition” for Geoland1, it is a database of names that have appeared on a map. (unsigned comment by Reywas92)
Note: This discussion has been included at‎ Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) (unsigned comment by Reywas92)
  • Keep I'm not sure WP:GEOLAND is really the right thing here, but [17] supports a "populated place" finding, and it does receive local coverage such as [18] [19] [20]. This [21] [22] is a modern obituary which shows the plantation was relevant at least into the early 20th century. A Google book search brings up several results as well, though it's clear there are multiple plantations with this name. On the whole, a weak keep. SportingFlyer T·C 04:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge in to Stephen Duncan. WP:GEOLAND#1 "Populated, legally recognized places". The interpretation of the definition of legally recognized is vague. Can anyone make a case that the location was legally recognized? My position is that being on a map or in the GNIS is not sufficient. My position is that a location must have a local form of government that has elected officials, which this location does not have. WP:GEOLAND #2: "Populated places without legal recognition... given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." SportingFlyer: The references you cite seem fairly trivial to me. These are passing references to the location. The references in the article to the Issaquena Genealogy and History Project are a start, though they are both trivial. To satisfy this requirement, I would like to see a WP:RS source that describes the history of this location. This could be as simple as a newspaper article. Cxbrx (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am adding a Keep after I added some more references. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral on whether to keep or to merge and redirect. Either would seem appropriate with the current content. It seems a little weird to call this a ghost town though. Is there any reliable source that describes it as such? Why not just "former plantation"? And why is it in Category:Populated places in Issaquena County, Mississippi? Are there any current residents? older ≠ wiser 19:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't be called a ghost town, and it's "populated places" not "currently populated places." SportingFlyer T·C 21:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it should. Didn't realise we made a distinction between the two! SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 California stabbing attacks[edit]

2019 California stabbing attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable attack. Article written up by a now-blocked right-wing sockpuppeteer, whose reasons for creating this seem clear. Anyway, it can't stand on its own merits: unfortunately this is as normal as it gets in America, and there is no indication that the crime was that widespread or that it had any legal repercussions. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. nableezy - 21:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article was only created in order to alarm and anger readers; WP:NOTNEWS, and I thank Drmies for finally getting these long-festering workaday 'crime roll' articles up for proper deletion nominations. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every source in the article is from the immediate aftermath of the event, exactly as one would expect for a violation of NOTNEWS. It's exceptionally unlikely that anyone not directly effected by this event would remember it now (less than a year later) nor recognize it by name -- in that respect it is a typical crime story, with no lasting significance. And while it is not strictly speaking a reason for deletion, the heavy emphasis on the ethnicity of the perpetrator is gross and speaks to the reason that this article was created in the first place. --JBL (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think neither Drmies nor I were aware of this, but this article actually went to AfD before, under its earlier title: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2019_California_stabbing_rampage. The result was no consensus, and the arguments there that this would have any lasting significance have been proven conclusively wrong by the passage of time. --JBL (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence this attack had any WP:LASTING effect.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Although well-sourced and covered in press, seem to be an ordinary gang-related crime. What is long-term significance here, exactly? I do not see any. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Previous deletion discussion seems to predate WP:MUSIC, as all the arguments seem to rely on notability being inherited. RF23 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This album does not exist. WP:NALBUM would normally be the criteria for deciding whether to keep the article, but in this case, the "album" appears to have been a rumor invented or encouraged by the band for the sake of having an air of mystique, so the relevant criteria would instead be whatever we use to adjudge the notability of cryptids and UFO sightings. AfD is the wrong venue for determining whether this should be deleted or not, since obviously we do not want to have a redlink here; the nominator should pursue a redirect or merge discussion instead. Chubbles (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Godspeed You! Black Emperor and merge a couple of lines into the history section. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not understand the rationale for deletion. Chubbles’ theory above is unsupported speculation contradicted by the available evidence as cited in the article; the fact that it is widely discussed in major music magazines is in itself prima facie evidence of its notability. There are many articles about lost films, lost manuscripts, etc. so the fact that it is unavailable commercially is not relevant. Tothebarricades (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess the real question (regardless of whether it is a "lost work" or a fictional album) is whether it passes GNG. Chubbles (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I have had my doubts as well, but it doesn’t seem like the role of a tertiary source to adjudicate that sort of thing. A quick Google Books search turns up mentions in Colin Larkin’s ‘’The Encyclopedia of Popular Music’’, among other things, so there’s no reason it shouldn’t be up here. (https://books.google.com/books?id=_NNmFiUnSmUC&pg=PA1439&dq=%22all+lights+fucked%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp1enM55_pAhVGl3IEHU1ADJYQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=%22all%20lights%20fucked%22&f=false) Tothebarricades (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something tells me Larkin wrote that from the band's press kit, not having heard anything firsthand, but... there it is, in the books. Chubbles (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that you bookburners always seem to get your way in these things? Completely fascistic philistine idiocy. Why even bother discussing? Tothebarricades (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per this deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —S Marshall T/C 19:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article appears to meet WP:GNG. I would point to the three sources already used by the article, which report on the Casketjack leak.[1][2][3] There are other sources but most of them are too closely related to the band or label for them to qualify of WP:GNG in my opinion. It also seems to meet WP:NALBUMS on the same grounds, but if we are being honest here I fail to see how something qualifing for WP:GNG could fail to meet WP:NALBUMS. Apart from this more formal argument, I also think it would be of detriment to the encyclopedia to lose this article. It is an interesting subject that is worth reading about. Since there is enough material to make a well cited article, I believe it would be best to keep it. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Changed my vote, per deletion review. Its existence remains in question as to being a "lost work" or a fan-exclusive album. Nonetheless, the "album" is also featured in Nashville Scene, The Rough Guide to the Best Music You've Never Heard, The Rough Guide to Rock and The Wire. With all the sources indicated in this AfD, the article easily passes WP:NEXIST and WP:FUTUREALBUM. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It may be a lost album, but the sources in the article (including this one), and the one shown by Superastig prove it's notability. (This one). Koridas 📣 05:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per @Koridas: and @Superastig:. The album does have Reliable sources. Dtt1Talk 14:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 05:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation C.O.R.O.N.A (novel)[edit]

Operation C.O.R.O.N.A (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was originally just a plot summary when I came across it at NPP. A quick check of twitter/the publisher's website shows this is the only book the publisher has ever released, the only two sources are clearly primary, and a search brought up only an Amazon link and a bunch of self-promotional forum posts. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's just not anything out there to show where this book is notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign that the book meets the requirements of WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Oddly, it looks like this is the only book ever published by this publisher so this may in effect be a self-published book. Pichpich (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you see that this book currently lacks sufficient evidence to meet Wikipedia's WP:NBOOK requirement, then you are welcome to delete it.Viewerindepth (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • YupDelete. Non-notable book. -CoronaEditor (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Books are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test for a book requires some reliably sourced evidence of significance, such as noteworthy literary awards and/or reviews from professional critics in real newspapers, magazines and literary journals. The fact that the book's existence can technically be verified on the self-published websites of its author and publisher is not, in and of itself, enough to get a book over the inclusion standards for books. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, gsearch brings up zero reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings (pinball)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The source currently in the article is a user-generated forum. Other sources my WP:BEFORE turned up are sales sites, blogs, the "Internet Pinball Machine Database" (likely user-generated), and opened wikis such as TV Tropes and Tolkien Gateway. No notability here. Hog Farm (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Offutt[edit]

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

Not notable. Mentioned only in passing in the sources provided. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Estrangement in Latinx Speculative Fiction[edit]

Cognitive Estrangement in Latinx Speculative Fiction (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)

"Cognitive Estrangement in Latinx Speculative Fiction" is almost certainly much too specific for a notable article topic. The article is also not written from a neutral point of view, reads like an essay, and uses a lot of jargon. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 17:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is the kind of article that gets created when an academic course requires its students to contribute to Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an essay not an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarize and merge, or redirect: looks to be a notable academic term, but the writing leaves a lot to be desired. A shorter summary would explain what it is, based on what academics are saying about it. Currently, it just reads like several different essays offering their own opinions on it. I believe there's a good paragraph to be written about this, and merged either to the author who coined the term, or an article about race in speculative fiction. (It is odd to me that I can find lots of articles about Gender in speculative fiction and Women in speculative fiction and LGBT themes in speculative fiction, but I can't find an equivalent for race and ethnicity.) Shooterwalker (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavy-hearted delete. Interesting though this is, and though it's clear that this isn't simply an academic essay masquerading as an encyclopaedia article, it's still original research describing a non-notable concept. I don't think it would be an overstatement or oversimplification to say that Jennifer0327 could have created a valuable article on cognitive estrangement (currently a redirect) or Latinx speculative fiction using many of the same sources (and I hope they do create one or both, though I suppose the semester's over now), but in trying to tease out the connections between the two they've veered beyond the territory of the encyclopaedic. (@Metropolitan90: For what it's worth, I don't think it's at all fair to say that articles like these are the inevitable result of university projects—most, I think, cause no trouble and some no doubt produce good articles; this class has also produced Chicanafuturism and Decolonization in Latinx culture, both of which need work but are certainly notable topics.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll agree that some university projects do produce some good articles. However, an article such as this one would be unlikely to have ever been added to Wikipedia outside the context of a university project. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Curtis (literary agent)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy notability under WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. The page is based on trivial coverages, press releases and primary sources. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sloppily written--has the novelization of Halloween as published in 1972... Caro7200 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment clarify please. What do you mean? I am not seeing how that book satisfies WP:NAUTHOR Graywalls (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. I meant only that the article contains inaccurate information. If I were "voting," it would be a weak delete. Caro7200 (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Caro7200:, ok thank you for your clarification. If you have a position, please consider placing your vote. Graywalls (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
reply Reading through some of the sources, it doesn't seem convincing to me that he's accepted as being significant and influential with the way some of the source writes, for example "IN a book to be published this month by Houghton Mifflin, the literary agent Richard Curtis charges that publishers have always cheated authors, that some publishers are still cheating authors " If NY Times posited in their own word that he's been influential or significant, that's something else. By the way, should we use NAUTHOR, or should we use guidelines that would normally be applied to general business person because the purported notability is for "literary agent" ? Graywalls (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree he doesn't technically qualify for NAUTHOR. However he has stronger sourcing for inclusion than some authors. But yet perhaps not enough for ANYBIO/GNG. For me it's a close call, however I end up as delete given what I think is borderline GNG combined with an article that is heavily promotional. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Revolution in India[edit]

Pink Revolution in India (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)

Pink revolution can be a lot of things, from feminism to buffalo meat to pork. It is an everyday term used everywhere. There are articles that tackle these separately, feminism in india etc. There is no need for a new article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article passes WP:GNG with numerous relaiable sources. And this is a widely used term in Indian agriculture sector. If nom feels multiple sectors used the term, it should be mentioned in the article separately instead of deleting. - The9Man (Talk) 06:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:The9Man What I am saying is that it is not a term at all, just a figure of speech like saying whitewash. We dont have an article whitewach in india and never will because it is not a term, its a figure of speech. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply below. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term Pink Revolution is taught in textbooks in India. Those who appear for the country's highest Civil service examination prepare for this. This is explained well here [4].
Some other links on the topic here. [5][6]

There may be other sectors or newspapers using this term for other matters, but that does't dilute or change the fact.

References

  1. ^ Reddit user claims to have unearthed Godspeed You! Black Emperor’s long-lost debut cassette All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling. FACT, September 16, 2013.
  2. ^ Godspeed You! Black Emperor’s long-lost debut, the limited-to-33 cassette All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling, reportedly surfaces on… Reddit. Tiny Mix Tapes, September 16, 2013.
  3. ^ Long-Lost Godspeed You! Black Emperor Cassette Allegedly Emerges Online Archived 2014-10-14 at the Wayback Machine. Exclaim!, September 16, 2013.
  4. ^ https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/pink-revolution/
  5. ^ https://www.gktoday.in/gk/pink-revolution/
  6. ^ http://foodindustryindia.com/newfood/detailnews.jsp?n=Meat%20and%20poultry%20sector%20in%20India%20%96%20pink%20revolution%20possible&id=780

- The9Man (Talk) 09:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia depends on WP:V, not your personal preference. Subject meets GNG and appears to have received significant coverage for over 6 years now.[23][24][25] Harmanprtjhj (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Harmanprtjhj your sources actually prove my point. They are using it just as a figure of speech, not for any particular phenomenon. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No policy says that we cannot create article about this subject. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Capankajsmilyo policy based reasong is that this does not belong on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT#DICT. this is a figure of speech. It is used for a number of different things according to the time, place and context.

So according to policy, phrases and figures of speech belong in the dictionary, not in wikipedia. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets WP:GNG. If you think that the article is ignoring any supposed "feminism" connection then you are free to add about it there. Otinflewer (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No evidence of BEFORE, AfD is not clean up. Simple search turns up multiple independent reliable sources showing connection to discussions on India's agricultural development since at least the early 1980s. Also notable for Modi's politicisation of the term.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Ensler, Eve; Husain, Danish; Sönmez, Burhan; Vapnyar, Lara; Rosca, Ninotchka (2018). "Strongmen: Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, Trump, Modi". OR Books: 45. doi:10.2307/j.ctv62hfk9.5. Modi arrives in the cow belt in Bihar during the election campaign of 2014. He invokes the "pink revolution" that will overtake the country. India, Modi says, is the largest meat exporter and he accuses meat exporters of colluding with the butchers—who are mainly Muslims. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Ranade, Chandrashekhar G (2014). "Two Concerns". Economic and Political Weekly. 49 (22): 4–5. ISSN 0012-9976. My second concern is his condemnation of the "Pink Revolution" during his elec tion campaign, referring to the growing export of meat
  3. ^ S., P. (1983). "The Pink Revolution". Economic and Political Weekly. 18 (15): 585–585. ISSN 0012-9976.
  4. ^ Zeller, Kirsten. "India's 'Pink Revolution'". RESET.
  5. ^ Mishra, Lalatendu (3 February 2019). "A 'pink revolution' quietly takes shape in Maharasthra". The Hindu.
  6. ^ Emel, Jody; Neo, Harvey (2015). Political Ecologies of Meat. Routledge. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-317-81641-6. India prides itself on its recent 'pink revolution'
Whether this should be Meat production in India or another name is certainly an apposite question (although I would disagree given the way in which the term has taken on political strength due to saffron politics), but not one for AfD. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsolak_MLKE-Galstyan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tsolak_MLKE-Galstyan (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)

Notability unclear, currently established through a single reference to an obscure journal. Needs more reliable, secondary sources presents to present the subject of the article as the founder of contemporary dance in Armenia. Charmanderblue (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you Charmanderblue that the word founder is not the correct one to present a living person without the article where there isn't the statement about it, though Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan staged the performances in contemporary dance from 2003, and there are a lot the festivals and video documentations, which prove that fact. And before 2003 there were no theatres and performers who stated that they were working in contemporary dance. But I also understand that Wikipedia's rules are strict and II need to proove word by word the statements I have written in this page. So I would like to know whether, instead of the sentence Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan is considered to be one of the founders of contemporary dance in Armenia from Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan's wikipedia page, I can use the following sentence Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan is the first ones who has developed contemporary dance in Armenia Stella Loretsyan (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella Loretsyan (talk • contribs) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your advice Phil Bridger. There are a lot of articles about Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan in Armenian and Russian and also there is an article about Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan in the book Contemporary Dance in the Former Soviet Union by the Russian Contemporary Dance historian and teacher Ekaterina Vasenina. Can the articles in the Armenian and Russian newspapers and magazines and the book be considered good sources? Here are some articles in Armenian:

https://www.aravot.am/2012/07/19/302279/

http://www.panarmenian.net/arm/news/112350/

http://panarmenian.net/arm/news/78500/

https://www.aysor.am/am/news/2009/02/10/mihr/6734

Info in English:

http://www.lairarts.com/tsolak-galstyan.html

https://www.gabrielleneuhaus.com/lavash/

http://asbarez.com/97973/citf-and-adaa-host-us-premiere-from-mihr-theatre-of-armenia/

https://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/65602/

Thank you in advance!Stella Loretsyan (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacks WP:sigcov ot establish notability. Formatted as a promotional CV. Not sure where one would begin to trim it, or what the underlying notable activity might be once trimmed. Theatre manager? Also, how can someone who was born in 1984 be a "founder of contemporary dance in Armenia?" Assuming they got started at 22 years old with the "founding activities", that would mean that contemporary dance in Armenia started in 2006, which is extremely unlikely, seeing as it started in the 1950s or earlier in other places. In sum the article has a lot of hype and not much to convince me of notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


You can check and will see, that contemporary dance as a theatrical direction has been developed in Armenia from 2000s and not only in Armenia, but also in other former Soviet Union countres, for example in Russia, it has been developing from 1990s. The main reason why contemporary dance theatrical diirection has been developing so late, is the political situation and Cold War between Soviet Union and Western countries, where the theatrical direction contemporary dance developed and only after the collapse of Soviet Union, the borders were opened and we could develop arts in the direction the Western countries developed.

And if I will replace "founder of contemporary dance in Armenia? with ethe statement Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan is the first ones who has developed contemporary dance in Armenia can this problem be solved?Stella Loretsyan (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (after edit conflict) Remember that Armenia was a republic of the Soviet Union, where classical ballet was promoted at the expense of contemporary dance, until 1991. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that contemporary dance didn't take off until the 2000s. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But contemporary dance in its purer form, not as classical ballet, started to develop only in 2000s, and I can state it a resident of Armenia, who lived there for 34 years. And I want to ask once again: if I will replace "founder of contemporary dance in Armenia? with ethe statement Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan is the first ones who has developed contemporary dance in Armenia can this problem be solved? Stella Loretsyan (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)— Stella Loretsyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's pretty obvious puffery. The article itself states that he was first a dance student in 2006. If you look at the associated Mihr (theatre), there is a whole lot of promotion going on in its 66KB of text. Australian_Dance_Theatre, founded in 1965, has 12K. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan has founded his Theatre in 2003. After which, he continued his studies and got Trainings in contemporary Dance in different countries to improve his technics and knowledge both as a choreographer and as a dancer. And I did not understand tha part of promotions, because I only put the articles Which I found in Google. And If the problem is the word founder can I replace it with the following statement: Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan is the first ones who has developed contemporary dance in Armenia? Stella Loretsyan (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That rewording still requires a substantial source to back it up as the references fail to back up the claims that the person is 'one of the first to have developed XYZ'. I would strongly urge to find multiple credible sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject of the article. The only undisputed fact that is verifiable as of now is the fact that he runs a certain theater and performs as a dancer. This is not sufficient for WP:GNG. Charmanderblue (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
out of scope AFD discussion, that continues on WP:COIN
The obvious puffery aside, I now have reasonable grounds to believe that the article on Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan and Mihr (theatre) were created and edited in violation of the rules of either WP:PAID or WP:COI. In respect to privacy I obviously cannot divulge the specifics on a public channel, but I'm strongly confident in my opinion. I'd appreciate for a more seasoned editor to take a look. Maybe ThatMontrealIP?. Charmanderblue (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stella Loretsyan, perhaps let us know if you are connected to the subjects here, per WP:COI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am true to WP:AFG unless hard evidence dictates otherwise. I can disclose more of the evidence I hold but I obviously won't on a public channel. It's not rocket science though, and should take a proficient administrator a minute. Either way, I will be exercising WP:BOLD and will be tagging both articles with the relevant notices of possible edits done in return for undisclosed financial gain. But I'd strongly prefer if someone more seasoned reviewed this case until then. Maybe Phil Bridger? Charmanderblue (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been studying contemporary dance and art for already 15 year and during my studies I have found out Mihr theatre. I only attand their performances and I am a follower of their pages in Facebook and in Insatgram. Sometimes I share their posts, but I have no personal connection with them. As I mentioned, I study contemporary dance in the world and in Armenia, so I have decided to put articles about contemporary dance in Armenia and started with MIHR theatre, as they are one of the developers of contemporary dance, and in my opinion they are important for the contemporary dance scene of Armenia. After them I have decided to represent also other performers in contemporary dance of Armenie in wikipedia platform. I work volunteery on my own initiative, I am not being paid, I have no intention to make promotions and I only want to enrich wikipedia with English articles about Armenian artists and performers, as I am also translator of the English Language. Stella Loretsyan (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this sounds like an invasive line of questioning and you are under no obligation to respond, but if you happen to know Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan personally as a friend than I would strongly suggest reading WP:COI. Charmanderblue (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can ensure you that I am not a friend of Tsolak MLKE-Galstyan. I study contemporary dance and as their theatre is having performances in the contemporary dance I attand their performances as a usual spectator and as, now, in Armenia Facebook is one of the platforms, where We can know about future events of the theatres, concert groups, etc., I follow their facebook page simply to know when they are going to have performances, that's all.Stella Loretsyan (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing which I would like to ask you, as an seasoned editor, is to help me to improve my article, as I am a new user, and your help will be very useful for me. Stella Loretsyan (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continued at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mihr_(theatre). Please discuss any COI issues there, rather than here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lazaro Arbos[edit]

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

A perfect example of WP:SINGLEEVENT. Event - American Idol (season 12). Post-Idol section quite paradoxically doesn't display anything that happened after the event. We generally consider individual's role within a TV Competition as a large one if this individual is a winner or a runner-up; subject of the article represents none of these. All the accessible coverage highlights individual's participation in the event, but does not indicate any significance outside of the competition in question. Juliette Han (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Juliette Han (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does seem that most of the coverage is WP:BLP1E related to the music show. He may become more notable in the future particularly if he has a charting single or album, that would likely qualify him for an article, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one placement in a song-contest TV show does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Idol (season 12) as a plausible search term. Aspects (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Premiership of Narendra Modi. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New India[edit]

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

Fails GNG as a slogan. May have been used in a literal sense in a speech but no indication of being used as a slogan like MAGA MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AirSwap[edit]

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

Non-notable Crypto company. Got a couple of mentions in CNBC and Bloomberg when they were doing their offering, nothing substantial. Fails WP:NCORP MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentioned in a book and various news sources including NYT. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Capankajsmilyo your source is not a peer reviewed or published book per se, it is the refereed proceedings of the First International Conference on Smart Blockchain. On top of this, it mentions Airswap in the most trivial of ways. No in depth coverage=no article. This is just another non notable coin that uses ethereum network. It has nothing to offer even if media outlets wanted to make it newsworthy. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Helmy (Businessman)[edit]

Ahmed Helmy (Businessman) (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)

Nothing notable, does not even meet WP:GNG. References are user-generated. Ninjaediator (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotional piece about a man who started a business selling hair straightener. Mccapra (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not notable. Ibn Daud (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that even if the nomination was by a sockpuppet, the arguments they raised - and others cited by other participants - justify deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flower Co[edit]

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

A cannabis company with no claim of significance. Ninjaediator (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: The article was nominated for deletion by a sockpuppet. also the article passes WP:CORP and WP:notability

Flower co. has been featured in Wall street journal, techcrunch, Forbes, MG magazine, Leafly, Bay Area Reporter 1 2 and others

Toothplow (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is blocked on Wikipedia for sock-puppetry!

(edit conflict)*delete despite this being a sock nomination, I had considered nominating this myself when it was created. I think it's WP:TOOSOON as the sources provided are not the type of coverage we need to see. In particular, the reliance on forbes, which is a contributor piece and "mg magazine" which is by all appearances a new random niche industry publication and I have doubts about its reliability and same for the rest. 22:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Usual PR stuff, especially on Leafy. Non-notable, fails NCORP. Nominated by a sock yes, but still does not excuse the fact that it is mosr probably COI or PAID editing. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a PR fluff piece, per the above comments. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FreshToHome[edit]

FreshToHome (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)

Name-drops, funding news via PR, not yet meet the notability guidelines of WP:NCORP. Ninjaediator (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete promo article. Graywalls (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PR article, worthy of a speedy if someone took the bold route. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 11:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J2 Innovations[edit]

J2 Innovations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A software company like many other software companies with no claim of significance. Ninjaediator (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot pass NCORP, likely COI editing. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deletion warranted per WP:COOKIE since the subject is absolutely ordinary. Fails WP:INDEPENDENT & WP:RELIABLE since [1] is the subject's own website, [2] is a source which has an advertising agreement with the subject. This is mentioned at: [3] under the title "Vendor Services". [4] has been authored by the subject itself. [5] is too less to offer something. [6] is grossly irrelevant. It mentions the subject just an undertaking which was acquired by Siemens amongst several others.

References

  1. ^ Innovations, J2. "About J2 Innovations". www.j2inn.com. Retrieved 2020-04-28.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ "FIN Framework - J2 Innovations :: StackHub". stackhub.org. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
  3. ^ "Vendor Services".
  4. ^ "New Fin 5 Software from J2 Innovations is Designed for OEM Partners". news.thomasnet.com. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
  5. ^ Allen, Nathan. "Siemens to acquire J2 Innovations". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
  6. ^ Wilson, Alexandra. "Siemens Doubles Down On Smart Building Investment, Acquiring Oakland Startup Comfy". Forbes. Retrieved 2020-04-28.

Yourmasterishere (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Nominated by a blocked sock and nomination supported only by a blocked sock. Wareon (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Shivam Singh[edit]

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

A politician who has never held any office, no history of winning any election. In India, children of popular politicians get high ranks within the party due to influence, without any election. This is a similar case. Ninjaediator (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails wP:NPOL as he never won any major election. --Cedix (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 05:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsai Road[edit]

Sarsai Road (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)

Nothing notable about this "local road" in a non-notable area! Ninjaediator (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, nothing more than a local road. Neverbuffed (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Barely notable.Ibn Daud (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 11:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable road . MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Just another road." Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 18:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Interstellar object#Confirmed objects. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of interstellar comets[edit]

List of interstellar comets (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)

There is only one interstellar comet to date. Including ʻOumuamua is OR. So the list includes just one entry. Useless. Delete per WP:TOOSOON as it could be recreated when another interstellar comet arrives MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Something with only 2 entries doesn't need a list. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie N. Sloan[edit]

Marjorie N. Sloan (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)

She was mayor of a small city, which isn't enough to presume notability. My search for sources didn't uncover significant coverage that would establish notability, so here we are. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no RS I can find anywhere, no indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayors are not all automatically notable just because they exist — the notability test for mayors, especially in small towns the size of Golden CO but still in big cities too, requires a substantive article referenced to a significant volume of press coverage. But this literally just states that she exists, and references that existence to a single piece of primary source content on the city's own self-published website about itself, which is not how you get a mayor over the notability bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Sloan was the mayor of a small town with 21K residents. I mean the sole source is unreliable as it is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It has been tagged with a template questioning its notability since May 2015. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one of the worst articles on a mayor I could imagine. No realible sources. City website do nothing to show notability. The city has under 30,000 people. Even places over 100,000 do not mean the mayor is default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 01:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hossein Sharifi[edit]

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

No notable coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nutan Rathore[edit]

Nutan Rathore (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)

Local mayor with no in-depth coverage. Ninjaediator (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable politician that fails WP:NPOL. Lack of election victory in a major election. Cedix (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked sock. MER-C 16:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cedix Spiderone 11:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firozabad is certainly a large enough city that a substantive and well-referenced article about a mayor could easily be kept — but mayoral notability is contingent on sourcing, not on population per se, and there's no size of city where the mayors are all automatically entitled to keep articles which just say they exist as mayors and cite just enough sourcing to technically verify their existence. Even in the world's very largest cities, making a mayor notable enough for an article still requires more sources, and more work put into the process of extracting genuinely substantive information from those sources, than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate to say this, because this city is essentially the same size of Detroit, but the sourcing is not enough to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mayor of a large city, but references are not adequate enough. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Wonderful Life (Mushroomhead album)[edit]

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

An album that has not been released. WP:TOOSOON MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than enough sources. Also just because it hasn't yet been released is not at all a justified reason for a deletion. There is tons beyond tons of upcoming video games and films that have Wikipedia articles. What in the world is the point of deleting this page? Just to make it again when the album comes out? How silly Second Skin (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Second Skin. Same thoughts with the previous AfD. Though it's WP:PRETTYSOON, it has indicated a track list and release date. Sources in the article are indeed reliable, including the ones I found: [26] and [27]. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 04:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage of the upcoming release and coverage of the already released single is more than enough to dispel WP:TOOSOON concerns. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tabar[edit]

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

a simple hedge fund manager with nothing to make him notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Sam Tabar is not a simple hedge fund manager but also founder and CEO of Airswap and Chief strategy officer of Fluidity, for verification please check Talk:Sam Tabar, Saad Ali (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* According to Wikipedia:Notability (people) section WP:BASIC which says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, such People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria. As Sam Tabar covered by Forbes, CNBC, Bloomberg News etc. which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject shows topic is notable.Saad Ali (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Saadbhai123 These have all been discussed at the previuos nomination and debunked. He paid someone to create his article a year ago, but that was deleted. He tried again this year, same result. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite According to my little knowledge for paid editing Wikipedian should use Template:Undisclosed paid. According to template [[28]], if someone place this tag, he/she should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article.Saad Ali (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing compelling since last AfD. The aforementioned sources by the page creator are nothing. Being quoted in a few articles does nothing to establish notability. Per WP:QUACK there is very real UPE concerns, no matter how much the PC adds random userboxes to their page to hide that fact. Paid editing like this, which it almost certainly is, should go through the AfC process. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @ User:Sulfurboy Being new on Wikipedia I am confused with your discussion, because you say completely different from WP:BASIC. According to you Forbes, CNBC, Bloomberg News etc. resources are nothing which creates another confusion for a new editor like me because these resources are according to secondary sources. Being a Wikipedia reviewer anyone should stay positive and neutral. Last AFD began because the topic has less secondary sources, some resources were self-created, but in this version of the article, all the resources are enough to complete the notability of topic. Yes, you right no one can hide paid editing fact by using random userboxes, but another human fact is that they don't want to lose something on which they invest their time for learning, researching and creating a thing. The same human fact involves in my case, which is different from WP:QUACK concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadbhai123 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just not at all notable in his field. StickyWicket (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep @ StickyWicket A Wikipedia Administrator User:Barkeep49 Review Sam Tabar, as page is nominated by User:MistyGraceWhite check his edit history, he almost nominate every article with same tag and start discussion for those articles, Please check his talk page number of people are protesting against his Vandalism. On the other hand if page is not notable please mention Wikipedia policy according to which you think this page is not notable.Saad Ali (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer - This is a double vote. Saad Ali is a duplicate account of Saadbhai123 (name similarity and identical user pages) Sulfurboy (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment imagine my surprise when I come to potentially close this AfD only to find that I've already been mentioned (multiple times). My review of this action was procedural in nature. At NPP if an article has been nominated for deletion at AfD it does not need to be further reviewed by new page patrollers. My review was in no way commenting on its notability (or lack there of). I frankly have no idea of its notability (or lack there of) beyond what I have now read in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially cryptospam stuff. No significant coverage of even the company in mainstream sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is nothing more than PR spam, sourced entirely to black hat SEO fake news sites and nothing in the way of actual reliable coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Mama (Brandy song)[edit]

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The song is fresh from the oven and there seems to be some coverage about it. It's featured in an article from Billboard. I even found other reliable sources which talk about the song: [29], [30] and [31]. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, charting single with coverage in multiple reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am seeing multiple sources, include Rolling Stone and Billboard among others, that show this song passes both WP:NSINGLE and WP:GNG. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not really understand why this song article is being considered for deletion when it was just released and has yet to make impact. It has also been promoted by several social media outlets and online magazines proving it's notability. -- Tease Pillar (contributions) • (let's chat) 07:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even a sock can be correct. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehraz Ahmed[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ehraz Ahmed (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)

Undisclosed-paid editing, only name-drops and other references are paid press releases like [32], [33] and contributor post like [34]. No in-depth coverage about this person, only news about flaws in notable Apps, WP:NOTNEWS Ninjaediator (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : The subject passes WP:GNG and he has found significant security flaws in major companies in India, one of which is Airtel, and the story was featured on BBC [35]. - Tatupiplu'talk 22:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first criteria of WP:GNG is in-depth coverage in independent reliable source. Could you please show WP:RS which has in-depth coverage? Please read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:1E.Ninjaediator (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After taking a close look, the references are beyond paid-for-spam:
  1. REF #1 - unreliable source
  2. REF #2 - self-published via SNS Web PR
  3. REF #3 - BBC News, seems reliable but only name drops and main news is about Airtel's security issues
  4. REF #4 - a segment of NDTV but again name drops and the main news is about Airtel's security issues
  5. REF #5 - another spammy self-publish promo aka Partnered Content with disclaimer This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text.
  6. REF #6 - another PR promo self-published.
  7. REF #7 - The Next Web news, reliable source but it is about security flaws with inputs from Moneycontrol.com, name drops and no significant coverage about the subject
  8. REF #8 - name-drops on moneycontrol.com
  9. REF #9 - Deccan Herald, another source known for publishing press releases. @Praxidicae: for input please.
  10. REF #10 - news about Nykaa's security flaws, not about the subject of this article
  11. REF #11 - Forbes contributors post, unreliable.
  12. REF #12 - PR from IANS.
  13. REF #13 - same REF #3 cited again, perhaps for WP:REFBOMBING
  14. REF #14 - slide shows, unrelaible
  15. REF #15 - a segment of NDTV about a news of Sony App's security, not on the subject of this article.
I initially discovered his Wikipedia page, but when I reopened it the next time, it was deleted and had a very promotional draft. I wanted to help, and his article was the first that I started my journey with and with the help of admins in the live chat.
Just because I started my first edit with the subject doesn't make me connected to him in any way. Similar to his, I have written two more biographies that i discovered through media or books.:
And the subject has minimal pictures on the web. I searched everywhere was not able to find one, and luckily after a search on Wikicommons, I was able to find an image that later i attached it in the article.
If you search his name on Wikipedia, you will find articles that are mentioning the subject's name, and that is how I was able to find these articles. Again they all were having grammatical errors and incorrect citations. I fixed those. But that doesn't mean that I am a paid editor or a stock user. I can also identify my personal identity to any Wikipedia admin.
Thanks.- Tatupiplu'talk 12:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD was opened by the now-sockblocked Ninjaediator, so it's eligible for closure under SK4 (nomination by banned or blocked user). However, that user being a sock doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong...from an initial glance, their arguments for deletion hold water. I ask anyone closing Ninjaediator's AfDs to leave this one for now, I'd like to dig a little more into this tonight and add a !vote. creffett (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator, despite being from the hosiery drawer, is correct here. The vast majority of the sources are brief mentions (fact of the subject discovering some security flaw or other, which is not enough to meet GNG), and the more in-depth ones (thestatesman, mid-day, theindiansaga) certainly look like vanispam/republishing what the subject gave them. creffett (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, the Nom is a sock, that does not mean that this PR piece masquerading an article is right. Name dropping and PR pieces, non notable fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform where you create your own article either directly or by paying someone else to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadin Serovski[edit]

Nadin Serovski (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)

Blogger with no claim to fame. Mentioned in listicles and PR pieces. Nothing in RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Productions[edit]

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

A media company with a PR laden article on Forbes India. According to that article, they mostly make ads, however, this entire article makes us believe that they are in the movie-making business. Lots of co-productions. There is no in-depth or significant coverage of this company in any RS, fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 03:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Games[edit]

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

Not a notable game developer, only name drops. Ninjaediator (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator Ninjaediator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, the nomination has some merit so I will leave this debate open. MER-C 18:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gabbie Hanna. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Karma (Gabbie Hanna EP)[edit]

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

A classic case of WP:TOOSOON. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and also no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An assistant bishop is still a bishop, and the general consensus seems to be that they are notable (WP:CLERGY). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Wagner[edit]

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

Non notable assistant to a bishop. News coverage in local papers as is normal for such positions. Nothing substantial or indepth in any RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - there seems to be a general consensus on Wikipedia that bishops in the Anglican Communion are notable (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Clergy). It seems that just about every bishop (diocesan and assistant/suffragan) in Australia already has their own page. Female bishops in Australia are even rarer. Wagner has been in the role for less than 2 months, so sources will be less than for others who have been there for a lot longer, but the sources in the article (particularly the Canberra Times article, which is a capital city masthead) already show there is more than "routine" coverage. Deus et lex (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Deus et lex (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Deus et lex and User:DiamondRemley39 I forgot to write assistant while nominating. She is not a Bishop, just an assistant. I was trying to get my head around why anyone whould quote WP:BISHOP for a mere assistant bishop, then saw that I had not written the nomination correctly. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - @MistyGraceWhite: She is a bishop, not an "assistant to a bishop". The Anglican Communion recognises only deacon, priest and bishop. There is no halfway. Assistant bishop denotes their role within a Diocese rather than their status - rather than running the diocese (the "diocesan bishop"), they hold a particular episcopal responsibility within it (some dioceses divide responsibility into regions, others (like Canberra-Goulburn here) give their assistants responsibility over the whole of the diocese but in particular areas. Deus et lex (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may have been confused that I linked to the bishop naming conventioms rather than the notability standard; I have corrected the error. I am not Anglican/Episcopalian, but clicking on the Wikilink, it starts "An assistant bishop in the Anglican Communion is a bishop..." And I see nothing exclusionary of assistant bishops in the bishop notability guideline. She is not "just an assistant" in the sense of sending faxes and making coffee, which is how your latest statement reads. She is in a named leadership position in a formerly and probably still patriarchical Christian denominaton. Does that help you "get your head around" my rationale and vote? I wrote before that she meets WP:GNG and my vote would be no different even if there were not the bishop crtieria. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Anglican bishops are notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brichchhivadharma Purana[edit]

Brichchhivadharma Purana (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)

Unsure if this is a disambig or an article, unsure what it is about and it is wholly unsourcedSlatersteven (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Original editor has been banned from editing before for disruptive editing, based in his talk page. Article stats of with “it’s” but doesn’t say what it refers to, and the rest of the very short article gives no clue. It’s a hot mess. Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Slatersteven and User:Postcard Cathy - I was trying to sort the AFDs and have no idea where to sort this, which means that we have no idea what it is, in which we don't want it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
THat much I got after some digging, but this is like "and SF has not been published in two volumes".Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, well, it has no sources, so it definitely does not pass GNG or NBOOK, and as neither of the links here are articles it is useless as a disambigation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There isn't any sourcing, which proves it's insufficient notability. Also, what even is this? I don't see anything that explains what it is. Where is the context? Kori (@) 02:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no useful info; clear GNG failure; possible speedy delete Spiderone 11:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mention in any RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NAUTHOR was suggested but with only one RS review it seems she doesn't meet the bar. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Jago[edit]

Carol Jago (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)

Only reference is her own website Rathfelder (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Accomplished professional, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Caro7200 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the editor above says she is an accomplished professional. She is a published author with a number of citations according to google scholar, she is also the recipient of a couple of literary awards. I think that taken togather there is enough for her to pass notability. AFD is not cleanup. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are millions of accomplished professionals in the world--you could be one yourself. She's authored many books, but I'm not finding a lot of coverage in reliable sources. It also appears that she may have edited her own article. Have you found any RS? Caro7200 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks the 3rd party coverage of her existence that is needed to prove notability. Just having works published does not make one default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly a person doing good things for literacy but I can't find any secondary coverage from reliable sources. Tacyarg (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She's published at least 7 books with Heinemann (publisher), which would suggest WP:NAUTHOR is likely. I can only find one RS review, however [36]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard College Film Festival[edit]

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

A non notable local festival. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of independent sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Harvard University or somewhere similar. I concur with the nominator that I cannot find independent sources with significant coverage for this particular festival to establish notability for a standalone article. However, since it does exist under a notable umbrella of topics (Harvard), I would mention it in some form somewhere and redirect to there. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only sources provided are the festival's own (now-defunct) website and an article in The Harvard Crimson, which as a newspaper at the same university doesn't establish general notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no non-Harvard published sources we have no evidence that this event is at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Taking into account the votestacking/canvassing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zarb-e-Sukhan (Kulliyaat)[edit]

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

This article was previously created as Zarb-e-Sukhan. A AfD concluded (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zarb-e-Sukhan) the book fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.

It was created early this year by a newbie - very likely a sock of User:Justice007. Saqib (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this IP is a serial sockpuppeteer. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justice007. --Saqib (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think it's clear that this does not meet the guidelines for notability, and has been created for the purpose of self-promotion. The author's page should be more than sufficient for encyclopaedic purposes. Akakievich (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Akakievich, I cannot figure out that you registered on 13 April 2020 and you become an expert on the rules and you were the first to object on the subject's article as well. It seems something awkward here, which visibly creates ambiguity and distrust but you should understand the rule that clearly says as - The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. per Wikipedia:Notability (books), the article has more than two most reliable sources, therefore, your delete request should be considered just a vote as collaboration as a part of Saqib whatever connections are there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Nothing new, they just copied from previous article. Störm (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user is clearly associated with the nominator for deletion as edit history shows since 2017, he disappears, but comes back together. This article was on the main page after the reviewer passed it and it was written by the mediateam as this discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1c00:1604:bb00:459b:2ced:129e:aab0 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Zarbe Sukhan is written by famous Pakistani poet and Pakistani newspaper is given in this article. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a page called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. You need to read that. Also its interesting you never participated in AfD before which could means WP:VOTESTACKING is going on. --Saqib (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Busted. VOTESTACKING has been confirmed. --Saqib (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You fall under Wikipedia:Harassment, specially per Hounding, as hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. VOTESTACKING has been confirmed, when you even do not bother to discuss the issues, and stay on your hegemony and illegimate editings, left no option to seek other neutral contributers of their input per as I asked them, it does not fall under convincing, see the wording - Please comment and vote with fairness and in a neutral way on - since I didn't ask individuals for Keep or Delete, I request on project. I am going to prove your bad-faith, precisely with your motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep: The book qualifies the GNG and notability book. As above keep comments. I do not see why the book should be deleted when it has reliable sources and significantly covered in the mainstream newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.117.117.149 (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is sock infected. --Saqib (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge parts of it with its parent article at Ehsan Sehgal. I had moved it to mainspace from draft based on the referenced provided. The AfD nominator Saqib has noticed that there is blatant suck puppetry connected with this submission and I assume this AfD has became a victim of convassing. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed that one of its main contributors had attacked my created articles after I had rejected the draft of it at first. Likely, there is a COI issue as well with this submission, and Ehsan Sehgal both. See main contributor of this submission - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not the strongest of consensuses but definitely a consensus that the sources for this topic do not establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean dance music[edit]

Caribbean dance music (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)

Proposed genre,[37] not an established genre. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Believe this is certainly a genre and worthy of a page and mostly focused on its evolution from electronic dance music. References to this new emerging genre from Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean that is establishing include:
  • [38] - iHeartRadio official playlist
  • [39] - EDM Sauce referencing the music being played on BBC Radio 1
  • [40] - Trinidad and Tobago Newsday (Local Newspaper)
  • [41] - Trinidad and Tobago Newsday (Local Newspaper)
  • [42] - Fact Magazine
  • [43] - New York Times
  • [44] - New Yorker Magazine
  • [45] - Spin Magazine
  • [46] - Remezcla.com
  • [47] - Miami New Times
  • [48] - Heavy.com
  • [49] - Vibe Magazine
  • [50] - Wired Magazine
  • [51] - Caribbean Beat Magazine
  • [52] - We Rave You Magazine (Israel)
  • [53] - Potent Magazine
- CaribbeanCurator

Playlists don't count for notability. Iheart.com could make a playlist of Caribbean Dinner Music (CDM) or Caribbean Chill Music (CCM). It's not a reliable source. This Newsday source, local to Trinidad and Tobago, talks about Caribbean dance music but the writer, Debra Greaves, is not a music critic or musicologist. This next Newsday source has one DJ named Leston Saunders saying "There is a whole Caribbean Dance Music (CDM) movement, fusing soca with dance music elements to be marketed both locally and internationally" which means he is pushing a genre into the world rather than acknowledging an existing genre. A bunch of your other sources just say "Caribbean dance music" in passing, because they are talking about dance music from the Caribbean. An example of that group is Fact Mag talking about steel drum and percussion samples that reflect a Caribbean flavor. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow your argument about referencing the genre in passing and are talking about dance music from the Caribbean because I think that would be equivalent of reducing EDM to dance music that was made electronically although EDM is a genre. Also Leston Saunder's reference is specifically referencing all the work that Diplo has been doing with his Major Lazer a notable international music act, since 2008 fusing Electronic dance music with Caribbean music. Remember this is a hybrid genre. And they aren't talking about indigenous percussive dance music from the Caribbean. If you read the articles I've referenced you will see that they are specifically talking about EDM fused with Caribbean music genres. You are correct however, the article I mention from FACT magazine is talking about percussive indigenous music, but this article describes Jus Now's approach in creating CDM from indigenous music. Jus Now is actually an CDM duo that are making CDM the EDM offshoot that was brought into the mainstream by Diplo and Major Lazer that combines EDM with other Caribbean music genres that I mentioned. Their EP Way Up was released on Feel Up Records which is the record label founded by Trinidadian DJ, and former Major Lazer member Jillionaire. Information on one of their releases can be found on The Fader here [54]. That being said i'll stand by to see what the outcome of the discussion is - CaribbeanCurator
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recentist nonsense which claims, for example, that this originated in Illinois, not the Caribbean. A proper article with this title would have a more historical perspective, covering better known forms such as rumba and salsa. See Music in the Hispanic Caribbean, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the best article I could find for notability, and I don't think it's enough on its own. Unless someone else can find good sources that cover "Caribbean Dance Music" as a genre, I say delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Prince (novelist)[edit]

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

Non-notable author I discovered at NPP, every single source is unreliable with the exception of the Arabic source, which just name-drops him. Athena Book Tavern has only published his most recent book, and a search of the first English-language book brought up only Wikipedia. It's not impossible he's notable via Arabic-language press, which I can't search, but the fact there's absolutely nothing in an English before search makes me think this is promotional/non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can read and speak Arabic and the Arabic-language references check out. There is also a TV interview in the references which is an episode of "Asir el-Kotob," the biggest book show in the Middle East. Also, the Arabic source does not just "name-drop" him: It mentions his name as a nominee for the Arabic Booker Prize. He did not win the prize, but the fact that he has been nominated is notable. The article should stay to enrich Wikipedia's content about writers from different parts of the world. The same goes for Russian, Greek, German, and other writers who have not yet been translated into English: They have Wikipedia articles, too.--Viewerindepth (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arabic source, as translated, just says "and [book name] by Michael Prince." That's not significant coverage, especially not enough for a WP:BLP. Interviews with an author are considered WP:PRIMARY - we need secondary sources. If there are other sources in Arabic I will be happy to review them. SportingFlyer T·C 20:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the source through Google Translate and if I'm understanding things properly, it looks like the nominations come from the publishing houses rather than being a list compiled by the award granting institution per se. Assuming that they don't allow authors to submit their own work, this does make it somewhat more selective but it's ultimately the publishers putting the book forward rather than the award granting institution specifically picking out that book. It's a good example of why nominations by themselves aren't seen as granting notability, as a publisher could put forward three books. If ten publishers put forward three books, then that's 30 right there that have been nominated. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, out of professionalism, I had to remove that public deletion notice as it is considered legal libel against the writer's reputation. We at Wikipedia are better than that. If you want an article to be deleted, next time just message the editors directly. You can delete the article, but putting a glaring notice like this one will have a tremendous impact on a notable author's reputation. Viewerindepth (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone bring formal closure to this discussion? I'd really appreciate it.Viewerindepth (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've restored the AfD notice per our deletion procedures. AfDs are open for at least a week. If you think this is libelous, please see Wikipedia:Libel. SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case go ahead and delete the article Viewerindepth (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable novelist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they require reliable source coverage about them in media. When it comes to the award nomination, the publishing industry often tries to whitewash the distinction between "nominated in the sense of being submitted to the award committee for consideration" and "nominated in the sense of actually being named to the short or long lists by the award committee" so that the writer's self-published PR can use the phrase "award-nominated" — but for the purposes of an AUTHOR pass on "award-nominated" grounds, a writer has to be listed by the award committee as a finalist, not just submitted to them as an entrant. The reason I mention this is that our article about the International Prize for Arabic Fiction (which is where the phrase "Arabic Booker Prize" redirects to) does not name him as either a shortlisted or longlisted nominee in any year — so I ran the source for it through Google Translate in order to figure out what was going on, and it indeed merely states that he was submitted. Which means he has no "inherent" notability claims that would guarantee him a Wikipedia article, so his includability depends entirely on the quality of his sourcing — and none of the sourcing here is of the necessary type to count as getting him over WP:GNG: again, we require media coverage about him, not his own self-published website about himself or his "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But just for the record, the comments above are way, way out of context. It is amazing this conversation even exists about an article which, instead of asking to bolster it with more resources, has become the subject of trolling and spinning around in a vicious bureaucratic circle. And context is king. The fact that none of the people who are trolling the writer here has ever lived in the Middle East or known anything about Arabic book culture and what is considered to be notable there or not--projecting strange interpretations without knowing much about the subject matter--is worthy of a good social study on its own. If this is the level of comments on a one-page article, I wonder how people can trust more significant Wikipedia articles in natural and historical sciences. Delete. Also, I am no longer honored to be part of this community and will have to look for a more accepting and rational place. Have a good day, everyone, and be safe. Viewerindepth (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but no. For one thing, the Middle East still has real media that can be used to properly source the notability of people from the Middle East, so we simply don't have to exempt people from having to have real sources just because they were born in Egypt — and for another, you can't just short-circuit notability questions by pontificating about abstract philosophical principles. If your concern is about "bolstering the article with more resources", then you need to buckle down and find the sources that will actually make a difference — and if your concern is about whether anybody else "knows anything about Arabic book culture and what is considered to be notable there or not", then you need to buckle down and find the sources that will show that he's actually considered as important in Middle East literary culture as you claim he is. Either way, it's on you to do the work, not on anybody else to just listen to assertions you can't be bothered to actually back up with proper sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both keeps are weak and not based on strong sourcing that would definitively meet WP:GNG, so consensus found to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murray MacLeod[edit]

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

A non notable actor. Deprodded in good faith as a source was located (https://www.loudersound.com/features/the-xcerts-love-loss-and-a-year-in-hell) but this appears to be for a different subject with the same name. No evidence of sources for the subject of this particular article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as an actor or a singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom. This BLP is supported by IMDb that is not a reliable source. As a double whammy IMDb is used in the "External links" and also as a reference. Notability on Wikipedia for inclusion is determined by significant coverage in reliable and independent sources and this is not evident. This does not mean there may be "some notability" but subjects "failing" to meet a minimum criteria should not be afforded a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: I have found some non-trivial sources at newspapers.com and am applying to have them clipped at WP:RX. I'll post them as soon as I can. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the sources I referred to above: here and here. The first will be useful for verifying many of the subject's early acting roles; the second discusses his relationship with his wife. There are other sources, too, but I think this is a good starting point. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source, mainly about the subject's wife, but mentions some of his film credits: clipping. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pace the new sources, but they do not demonstrate the persistent or in- depth coverage required to pass the minimum requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SN54129 08:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I am going to go along with WP:GNG for the clippings by Dflaw4 above. Serial Number 54129 does not seem to be familiar with WP:ANYBIO, which has nothing to do with press coverage. P.S. notability is a temporal thing. No form of notability requires persistent coverage. Notability is permanent. If you were ever notable (as this guy was in the 60s and 70s), we will accommodate that notability with a bio on WP. He once held a stature or some sort of sway to alter the career of a peer of Barbara Walters from the sound of things. Who knows what Stephanie Edwards (television personality) if she hadn't been so into this guy, but I guess he has given her 45 years of happiness, which may be worth more than a great news career.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is innate to GNG, ANYBIO is merely a further failure to meet basic notability requirements. Unfortunately for your argument, changing someone's career (!) or having someone "into" you (!!!) are even less solid indicators of notability. And are equally less mentioned in, err, anybio. Etc. Cheers! ——SN54129 06:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this seems the very definition of “notability is not inherited” (WP:INVALIDBIO) - if several editors have conducted extensive searches, and out of the 3 sources found, 2 are passing mentions in relation to the subject’s partner, then I can’t see how we can produce anything more than a very short stub out of this sourcing. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW keep. Consensus is that the incidents listed are notable and the list is worthy of inclusion. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents at Herschend parks[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:LISTN. Having trouble finding sources that indicate that accidents at Herschend parks is a topic discussed as a group. The individual accidents have news references, but I can't find anything that specifically discusses the various incidents as a group, which is required by WP:LISTN. Hog Farm (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incidents at amusement parks are notable for readers who wish to learn about these things. This is merely a summary list of incidents, similar to those for other amusement park chains. Herschend Parks is a growing chain with some significant properties in the United States, boosting notability. --McDoobAU93 01:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Need to rename it to have "list of" in front of the current title like the other lists of this type do. Category:Lists of amusement park incidents All the entries are blue linked to their own articles or to the articles of the theme park they happened in. So it meets the requirements of a list article as it groups relevant things together in a way that aids in navigation. Dream Focus 18:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, This is a list of notable incidents that makes the article encyclopedic. Alex-h (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this should be moved/renamed to List of Accidents/Incidents at Herschend Park. noteworthy list nonetheless. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yasek Manzano Silva[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vmavanti (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of wishful thinking, with the obligatory figurative, melodramatic phrasing ("clears the bar" hurrah! I saved the baby from drowning!") wholly inappropriate to the discussion and subject at hand. And Vimeo cannot be used as source.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spin can be used as a source, including video content - the independent source requirements are deliberately catholic with respect to medium of transmission. That Vimeo is hosting the content is incidental. Chubbles (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But what do you make of the sources that I added to the article? They seem to fit the bill to me. There's no shame in not knowing that "Silva" is a maternal family name that is usually omitted when using Spanish names, so why not just be happy that you have learned something new rather than make unfunny jokes about someone else's comment? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. I propose deletion of an article. You respond by telling me about Spanish naming habits on the assumption that I don't know what I'm doing. Then you want me to thank you for having taught me something. Then you dismiss my comments as unfunny jokes. Really? You think that's how it works?
Vmavanti (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has coverage in reliable sources with references to it added to the article such as NPR and Radio France Internationale plus Spin, so there is no longer a valid reason for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom seems testy at the use of "clears the bar", so he crosses the GNG line (barely). He is mentioned in multiple RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I trimmed a few slightly puffy phrases, but I think the sources support notability. GirthSummit (blether) 11:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 06:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Joe, Montana[edit]

Hungry Joe, Montana (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)

GNIS lists this as a "locale", not an "unincorporated community", and every other source that I could find describes it as a hill where the town of Glendive's water filtration plant is located. The local newspaper, Yellowstone Monitor, has numerous mentions of people hiking up it and a few stories about the water plant but nothing to suggest that it's a community of any sort or a notable place in its own right. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V, unless did the author actually "drive hundreds of miles" here? Probably not since it isn't a community. Reywas92Talk 03:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is factually incorrect but the feature itself is likely notable Fails WP:V? This isn't a community, this is a bad GNIS categorisation and shows what an unreliable source that is, but it's a well-described butte south of Glendive, Montana that probably passes WP:GEOFEAT. [55] [56] [57] [58] (there are more sources, tired of copying and pasting.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and political radicalism[edit]

Jews and political radicalism (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)

Bizarre topic, only one source, reads like an essay Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This sounds like a cross-section of topics, rather than like a topic in and of itself. Something that would invite a lot of original research, and not much serious information. Debresser (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the whole 20th century section is a general and unsourced statement, followed by a subsection about themes in antisemitism. Both should simply be deleted. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Realistically, if all the material in the "Further reading" section is actually relevant to the article, it would be a hard job proving non-notability. In fact I doubt I would try. I guess a redirect to Jewish Left might be best: I refuse to countenance the suggestion that the topic itself has no notability. "Bizarre" indeed. ——SN54129 09:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The amount of content in the bibliography implies that there is a lot to be said. I suspect that Jewish left is in fact an incomplete article, but rather than expanding it too much, it may be better to have articles in that subject in particular countries. There is a long section in that on UK, but very little on the pre-1917 reaction to Russian pogroms. I see nothing on US, except in the reading list; and I might go on. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see two editors already, who refer to the large amount of literature and think that here is a subject here. I am pretty sure this is not the case, and the bibliography is more of a list of readings that might or might not contain some interesting information which might or might not be relevant to the article. I admit that many Jews were on the forefront of the communist revolution in Russia, and that is something that may be documented, but I doubt there is much literature about Jews and political radicalism in general. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least draftify. At the moment there is nothing in the article that justifies its existence. Participation of Jews could be relevant in articles on specific social movement, but unless their Jewishness was a key aspect of their participation (example: Zionism) even that is doubtful. A much better reason for an article on the topic in the general sense is needed. Zerotalk 02:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That might be a legitimate topic if properly written and sourced (one needs strong RS which describe the subject as a whole to avoid WP:Coatrack here). However, as written, this is all WP:OR. Sources in "Further reading" are not about Jewish radicalism, but about Jews and socialism/communism. They can be used in Jewish Left. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't really a point to this article as the Jewish Left article is much more comprehensive while this article is pretty much just one quote. Zoozaz1talk 17:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suhas Tejaskanda[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also looks like a case of self-promotion. The draft of the article (Draft:Suhas_Tejaskanda) was declined, but still user published the page to mainspace without any significant changes. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey D. Sams[edit]

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

Non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no major coverage for any of his main roles. IMDb is currently the only link. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The only other close-enough page I could find was this TV guide page [59], and it doesn't seem like significant coverage, so I say delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Changing my vote, see below Ikjbagl (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete our biography of living people guidelines require all articles on living people to have reliable sources for everything asserted. In this case we have no reliable sources for anything, so should delete the whole thing on those grounds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletion is not immediate, BLPPROD gives seven days, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has existed since 7 October 2005. How such sub-standard articles have survived for so incredibly long is hard to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Keep: The subject has had several recurring roles in TV shows as well as main or supporting roles in some big films, like Soul Food (film). I would expect there to be sources on him and am currently searching for them at newspapers.com, and would kindly request this AfD be relisted so that I can get some clipped at WP:RX. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the coverage I have found appears to be very in-depth. I will post it here as soon as it is clipped. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Based on the sources I have provided below, I think WP:GNG is met, as well as WP:NACTOR. I am upgrading my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 07:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's a couple of passing mentions and some superficial coverage in a couple of deadtree sources, but nothing that suggests the persistence of coverage that GNG requires or the quality of sourcing that BLP demands. ——SN54129 10:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are just a couple of sources which provide in-depth coverage from the 1990s: here and here. And thank you to Buidhe for relisting. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The new sources found by Dflaw4 (talk · contribs) establish notability, so thanks to that user for finding them. I have added the sources to the page. I am now changing my vote to keep. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has some prominent roles for WP:NACTOR as confirmed by multiple dedicated newspaper articles so that WP:BASIC is met in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I took a look at history and I think the article has been improved a lot source wise since the nomination thanks to User:Ikjbagl. Passes GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per sources added by Ikjbagl, and thanks. One down and thousands to go. Please visit as many as you like and add reliable sources. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK2, and User:NorthBySouthBaranof. No prejudice against a renomination by an uninvolved editor. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 09:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Greg Gunn[edit]

Shooting of Greg Gunn (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)

WP:NOTNEWS no indication of any lasting impact whatsoever, currently simply a retelling of news articles. Simmo86 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep - Appears to be retaliatory for article creator Drmies' deletion nomination of an article created by Simmo86. In addition, this incident is specifically tied into a broader history and context of police violence against African-American people that led to a major protest movement in the United States in the early 21st century. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please WP:AGF I fail to see how his death ties into the protests as its not listed anywhere that I can find within a Black Lives Matter article. I'm sorry but I don't think his death is worthy. Simmo86 (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simmo86, whether something occurs in a Wikipedia article or not is not quite relevant. It occurs in reliable sources, for four years now. There's much more coverage; it just needs some attention. Drmies (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Yang Sisters[edit]

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

Non-notable sitcom with no reliable sourcing or significant coverage. Article unsourced since November 2006. Kori (@) 05:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIW Tag Team Championship[edit]

AIW Tag Team Championship (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)

Contested PROD; fails WP:PWCHAMP. Non-notable title for a non-notable promotion. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PWCHAMP. Hard to create an article for a title if the promotion isn't notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIW Intense Championship[edit]

AIW Intense Championship (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)

Contested PROD; fails WP:PWCHAMP. Non-notable title for a non-notable promotion. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PWCHAMP. Hard to create an article for a title if the promotion isn't notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard-Lael Lillard[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Could find no coverage beyond a passing mention in a Pasadena Weekly article. PK650 (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chusak Sriphum[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hillelfrei• talk • 04:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness International[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unabashed promotional material for an organisation. No evidence of notability. Top GHits are for this en.WP article, or the organisation's own website. Created by a WP:SPA. Citations are all to self-published sources. -- Ohc ¡digame! 22:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pell[edit]

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

It is clear that there is no notability here. There has been a notability notice on this page for more than a decade and looking at its edit history, it seems that the page was created by Pell or someone connected to him. There are loads of issues with referencing issues as well. If notability can’t be credibly established after a decade, it’s not going to be established and as such probably doesn’t deserve his own article. Geelongite (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability, and reads like a corporate bio. Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on current sourcing (the point about the decade of no improvement in this area being well taken). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. I guess I was overly optimitic in my last edit in suggesting we quickly respond to undersourced articles on businessmen. We really need to go to requiring that every article goes through the article for creation article. We do not let people unilateraaly delete articles without at least giving some notice, we should not allow for the unilateral creation of articles either. At least we no longer allow for unregistered user to create articles. That said, I am one of those people who feel that our failure to require editors to use their real names is another major draw back to Wikipedia. Some say "we do not want minors using their real names", I say "we do not want minors creating articles on Wikipedia either."John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jungle Cat World#Safari Zoo Camp. Sandstein 07:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Zoo Camp[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Written like an advertisement.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Sure, there are faults of this article (it has promotional language ("exciting and unique") and dubious claim ("The only residential summer camp of its kind in the world"), but this is quite likely a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. However obviously it properly could be a section of the Jungle Cat World article and/or could be covered in a list-article of programs of its type, say. The suggested target is better sourced, and there is no length problem requiring this to be split out as a separate article, so redirecting back is okay, as an editing matter. However it also would be fine if this is re-split out if/when there is much more substantial, sourced development. --Doncram (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Community College[edit]

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

Article subject is not notable is terribly sourced. Literally all of the sources are unreliable and primary. School does not pass WP:ORG as lack of non-primary significant coverage. Kori (@) 02:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There's tons of other school pages just like this one. They simply need work to pull up to standards, not deletion. Ed6767 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ed6767, And do you have any sources I can improve the article with? Kori (@) 02:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are several colleges by the same name and none get more then passing mentions or mere listing. ww2censor (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there is no secondary coverage of this school more extensive than a passing mention, and as such it fails GNG and WP:ORG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NSCHOOL, a gsearch brings up the usual listings only, would be okay to have a mention at a (at present non-existent) facilities/education section at Boyle, County Roscommon in line with WP:5P1. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Uncontested deletion. Sandstein 07:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Chang[edit]

Tim Chang (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)

In VRTS ticket # 2020042610005811, the subject of this article is requesting its deletion. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." I also ask participants of the discussion to keep in mind that the article is fairly promotional as is, so doesn't greatly contribute to the encyclopedia, even without considering the above request. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly not notable enough to justify an article against his request to not have one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Routine stabbing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Home Office stabbing[edit]

London Home Office stabbing (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)

Clear-cut case of WP:NOTNEWS: there is nothing here of any lasting importance, just a mildly sensational crime that generated some at-the-moment news coverage. The entire article reads like a contemporaneous news report, and that's because there's nothing encyclopedic to say about this topic. JBL (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing really of note happened. Knife attacks in London happen all the time, and yes, this was a high profile location, nothing really of note came from it. It wasn't very earth shattering and tbh even as a Brit I've never even heard of this event. Ed6767 (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Location, location, location may be of utmost importance for real estate, but not so much for this particular crime, plus the victim didn't even suffer a life-threatening injury. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was nearby when this happened; it wasn't remotely significant. This article seems to be a good-faith misunderstanding of routine local reporting to draw the conclusion that it was more significant than it was—e.g. the London Ambulance Service's "We treated a man at the scene and took him to a major trauma centre" doesn't mean "the injuries were major" but is their boilerplate text for "we took the injured party to A&E", while "For a time after the suspect was arrested, a cordon and police presence remained around the Home Office" doesn't mean they were treating it as some kind of major incident, but is just a description of the routine taping-off of a crime scene until it's been photographed and cleaned up. London is a city of 10 million which includes its share of people who are mentally ill, high on drugs, or carrying a personal grudge; random attacks in which someone gets hurt are unfortunately fairly routine, and happening outside a building full of civil servants doesn't somehow confer notability. ‑ Iridescent 07:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom and Iridescent: I was on a 507 at the time. ——SN54129 09:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is significant that the news coverage that appears when searching for sources is all dated 15 August – the day of the attack – apart from two or three notices from a few days later, saying the suspect had been charged. Clear case of a non-notable event per WP:NOTNEWS. (I was in Dublin at the time and did not exactly keep up with the news, but the main daily paper in Sweden didn't even mention it. The London Bridge attack on the other hand was covered in all the news here. This does not in itself mean it's not notable, but it all points in the same direction.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the nomination, Clarityfiend, Iridescent — there is no indication of lasting importance. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable event and no lasting or significant impact (wp:event). --Steve Quinn (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--another example of an incident that fails per NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOTNEWS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect can be manually created. Sandstein 07:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcrest Country Club[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_May_3&oldid=956380337"