Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 May	7 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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 03:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peñafrancia Tours and Travel Transport[edit]

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

I cannot find evidence that this is a notable bus company. It exists, and provides transport, but coverage is limited to that. StarM 23:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 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 delete. Borderline WP:SNOW, at that. BD2412 T 04:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Douglas[edit]

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

A non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a search returns no RS. Caro7200 (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have found no reliable significant mentions. Only user generated trivial mentions. Less Unless (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources Barrettsprivateers (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Of the sources I have gone through so far at newspapers.com, I have found some non-trivial coverage in a few articles about a TV guest appearance in 1993—essentially describing the subject's role as "pivotal", and other comments in this vein—but, combined with a weak WP:NACTOR argument (only one significant role), I don't think the relevant notability standards are quite met. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is WP:TOOSOON; she only has one significant role so doesn't yet qualify under WP:NACTOR, and she doesn't qualify under WP:GNG either. If she gets more significant roles, then she may become notable. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mubashir Siddique[edit]

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

Other than a couple of news stories, I couldn't find enough significant coverage specifically about him so subject doesn't seem to meet general notability requirements. Wikipedia doesn't care how many followers or fan one have. Saqib (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Also, he was covered by BBC Urdu and other sources. Any one with his name in Urdu script may add links. Störm (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Störm; some of the sources appear to spell his surname alternately as Saddique like this one and this. Mar4d (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I regret making this nomination. Withdraw it hereby. --Saqib (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saqib, you should have a look at WP:WDAFD about about to withdraw AfDs. Best. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:47, 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) 09:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Jefferson[edit]

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

Non-notable Hillelfrei ^talk 21:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hillelfrei ^talk 21:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For future editors, Colegio Jefferson is an important school in Caracas. However, I still think the article fails the general notability guidelines, and high school educational institutions should excel before having an article. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more than an entities own website to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not provide any sign of notability. Nika2020 (talk) 19:41, 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. czar 23:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XLAB[edit]

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

Article does not satisfy WP:CORP; source search does not indicate that WP:NEXIST. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the refs in the article actually mentions the subject ( I have removed 1 of them, but actually all should be removed). None mentions found after WP:BEFORE. Not notable for now. Less Unless (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not give any reason why it should have page. Nika2020 (talk) 19:43, 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. czar 23:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Matlub Ahmad[edit]

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

No claim or evidence of notability. The article is poorly sourced and overtly promotional. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. non-notable businessman. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional non-notable. Ipsign (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, is not notable, looks promotional Alex-h (talk) 08:56, 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) 17:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K M Mozibul Hoque[edit]

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

Vanity page of a non-notable businessman. No claims to notability and coverage fails to meet GNG. Created by an editor who was blocked for paid editing. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Siddiqur Rahman[edit]

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

The subject fails notability guidelines, the coverage is mostly run of the mill and nothing strong enough to suggest he meets GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is neither LinkedIn nor "Who's Who". We are not a directory, although we have been abused to almost be one in some ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what does it mean when Businessperson articles face deletion after 2 years while actor and actress articles tend to have languaished with much worse sourcing for 10 years or more?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 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 keep. A valid list-type article, though it needs improvement. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers of Egypt[edit]

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

List is not helpful for readers. It only contains one major item, the Nile. Most of the information should be moved to Nile. The other topics are wadis, which are technically not rivers. ~ Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The wadis, whether rightly or not, are included in Category:Rivers of Egypt. Outright deletion seems in any event a poor solution, rather than a reconsideration of scope/retitling, etc. Otherwise we have an unexplained gap in Category:Lists of rivers by country. postdlf (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Deletion should be a last resort. You can rename it List of rivers and wadis of Egypt if you want. Dream Focus 01:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe something like List of watercourses in Egypt. I was going to suggest waterway but that apparently requires navigability. The things I learn on Wikipedia... : ) postdlf (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would also allow the Suez Canal (and other prominent canals? are there any?) to be included. Stevage 05:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (original author). I wrote the article because I was curious what other rivers there were in Egypt, and there wasn't a list. If you search for such things, you'll see a fair number of articles about this fact on the web. Ergo, it *is* helpful for readers. Stevage 14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all other "List of rivers in (country)" lists. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Valid list topic although the article needs some serious work. It's not a list in its current state, just some content about the Nile and its tributaries that belong on the Nile article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more names from Category:Rivers of Egypt. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, A good topic, article needs more work, maybe it's better to move it into draft, but should not be deleted. Alex-h (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Denial is not a river in Egypt.... But seriously, what others have said is accurate. This is notable and in line with what we have for other countries. Smartyllama (talk) 13:10, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liter of Light Bangladesh[edit]

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

Article created by the founder of this organization and clearly promotional. Sources are about events, own interviews, trivial coverage or no mention at all. The topic is about a local chapter (WP:ORGSIG) of Liter of Light and it fails WP:ORG.. Initially, I tagged this article for CSD but advised to go through with AFD process. (Note that the creator is glocked and belongs to an undisclosed paid sock farm) ~ Nahid ^Talk 17:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, for failing WP:ORG. The article makes this small organization seem like the inventor/creator of these illumination projects. It is not, by a long shot. Ifnord (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG. also promotional article. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liter of Light: Per nominator. Article looks WP:PROMOTIONAL and easily fails WP:ORG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Liter of Light. Ashishkafle (talk) 17:26, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cebeci railway station[edit]

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

This train station has no claim for notability. Essentially no content either. Mopswade (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it exists, it passes WP: GEOFEAT, which is all it needs to do. ——SN 54129 08:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? GEOFEAT says this "Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable. The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability." I don't think this train station warrants a standalone article, if this is all the information there is on this station, one for the entire line will be more than fine. Mopswade (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only if someone adds a source. Failing that, redirect to the line, if the list of stations is supported by a source, or delete if not. PamD 11:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source to the article, Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We always keep articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, can be redirected to the line until it can be further developed. Not sure where in WP:GEOFEAT a train station is "automatically" notable. SportingFlyer T·C 19:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus, per WP:RAILOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "generally kept" not "always," probably because stations typically get sources. Where are the sources? SportingFlyer T·C 18:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - In Turkish, I expect. Have you looked? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - My search for "Cebeci Tren İstasyonu" brought up only websites like FourSquare, and the Turkish wikipedia was no help. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No other Wikipedia can determine non-notability, because this is the best developed of all the language editions. I'm at a disadvantage here compared to you, because I don't know Turkish, but this looks like an independent reliable source to me. We shouldn't expect "Cebeci Tren İstasyonu" to appear in that order in any such source, any more that we would expect "Anytown Railway Station" to appear in that order in an article about the railway station in Anytown in an Anglophone country. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know Turkish either - for determining notability for articles like these, I try to find an applicable article in the source-language Wiki, and since different wikis have different notability guidelines, try to run searches based on keywords in those articles. I can't find anything related to trains in the dergipark article, as they use the term "station neighborhood" to describe the place, but that's not related to the train station (reading the English abstract.) I'm also happy to change to a keep if proper sourcing is found - I'm not against this article, it just needs to be properly sourced or else redirected to the main line - and I appreciate you trying to salvage it. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I recognize the precedent for keeping rail station stubs, but in this case a standalone stub doesn't help the reader at all. The information one would need to make sense of the stub content is covered at Başkentray; why not just cover it there instead of making them click through? –dlthewave ☎ 13:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mainline rail station. It's impossible for extensive government and private reports, analysis and studies to not exist. Such a rail station in the UK or US would never even be considered for AfD. Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mainline rail station or Merge/redirect (since there appear to be a lack of EN language sources at this time) to Başkentray, the line on which it's located.
Comment If you search under ‘cebeci istasyonu’ you’ll see that the station is the subject of several songs and poems. Mccapra (talk) 03:28, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tierney (film director)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. KidAd (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the only RS I found were mentions in articles about his relatives. Caro7200 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His closest claim to fame is having notable raltives which is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 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. Sandstein 17:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christina López[edit]

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

Delete or Merge Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as a non-notable fringe candidate. KidAd (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe party candidates for president or vice-president can sometimes clear the bar if they can actually be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but are not automatically entitled to keep poorly sourced articles just because their name appeared on a ballot. But GNG is not just about counting the number of footnotes present in the article and keeping anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number of them, either — GNG tests the sources for their type (e.g. major market daily newspapers count for the most, while weeklies and smalltown dailies are worth much less), their geographic range, their intellectual independence from the topic, their depth and the context of what the person is being covered for. The sources here — two alt-weeklies, one primary source press release from her own party, one book chapter where she's the author and not the subject, and one smalltown daily — are simply not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:GNG (4 independent sources IMNSHO clear 'multiple sources' requirement with flying colors - and nothing in WP:GNG says that alt-weekly doesn't qualify as an WP:RS). Ipsign (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said alt-weeklies are entirely ineligible for use — but if there are so few genuinely solid sources that alt-weeklies are very nearly the best sources you can find, then they haven't passed GNG just because they can show a bit of coverage in alt-weeklies. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — it does test the sources for other factors besides just the raw number, such as depth and breadth and range and type and context. If a person had 20 or 30 good and useful sources, then we wouldn't care if some of them were alt-weeklies — but if a person has so few sources that two alt-weeklies represent fully half of the total, then that's not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable political candidate. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:39, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hui Lau Shan[edit]

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

This is advertising. The Google Translation of the Chinese WP article [5]is so much more objective, that this should be removed, and a new article substituted. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I reviewed and copy-edited the article with additional sources, including Chinese-language sources. I also expanded the contents with reference to the corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia. While this article still needs more work, I believe it looks much less of an advertisement now then it was when it was nominated. I hope my edits has sufficiently addressed the concerns brought up by the nominator. (P.S. I understand the article was not nominated for lack of notability, but for the sake of completeness of the argument, I would note that the franchise is popular in Hong Kong, and well covered in reliable English and Chinese language sources: 1, 2, 3.) --Dps04 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Evans, Grant; Tam, Maria (2004) [1997]. Hong Kong: Anthropological Essays on a Chinese Metropolis. London: Routledge. pp. 64–66. ISBN 0-7007-0601-1. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
Sun, Celine (2012-08-07). "Dessert chain offers place to chill out". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2014-03-25. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
Do, Je-hae (2017-07-12). "Asia's hot desserts now". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
Hang, Kristie (2019-08-26). "Hong Kong's Most Famous Mango Dessert Shop Opens in Irvine". Eater. Archived from the original on 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
Long, Katherine Khashimova (2019-12-02). "Crazy about mango desserts? At Hui Lau Shan in Redmond, 5,040 mangoes a week make it summer all year 'round". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
Quek, Eunice (2020-01-17). "Mango dessert specialist Hui Lau Shan back in Singapore". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
Cheng, Chen (2001). "Eating Hong Kong's Way Out". In Cwiertka, Katarzyna Joanna; Walraven, Boudewijn (eds.). Asian Food: The Global and the Local. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 0-8248-2544-6. Retrieved 2020-05-03.

Sources with quotes

Evans, Grant; Tam, Maria (2004) [1997]. Hong Kong: Anthropological Essays on a Chinese Metropolis. London: Routledge. pp. 64–66. ISBN 0-7007-0601-1. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
The book notes:
Herbal tea shops? The case of Hui Lau Shan

Hui Lau Shan has been the most prominent of all among Chinese herb tea permit holders. Its first shop was founded in Yuen Long before the 1970's, most famous for its turtle jelly. In the 1990's, its arrival in Causeway Bay, one of the busiest business districts on Hong Kong island, as a herbal tea shop was accompanied by the introduction of fresh fruit desserts with sago. The fresh fruit sago business has become synonymous with Hui Lau Shan, which has claimed to be the creator of 'fresh fruit sago mix (首創鮮果西米露)'. Their business has also expanded into selling 'handmade beef balls'. The diversification of its products from turtle jelly and herbal tea to fresh fruit sago mix and related desserts, and now to beefballs, has led to an 'identity crisis' in 1994.
It has established itself more as a fruit and dessert shop than a herbal tea shop. The display of fresh fruits and the counter with blenders filled with different fruit juices in every shop is a far cry from herbal tea shops. Many of those who have visited Hui Lau Shan are not even aware of the availability of twenty-four herb tea and turtle jelly. Others said they would go to other shops for these traditional items for Hui is only good for desserts. Few recognise it as a herbal tea shop and as one of my informants pointed out that the Taoist urn is not present anymore. Hui Lau Shan has marginalized herbal tea to a self-service counter which is obviously designed to discourage people from consuming drinks (HK$5-10) inside the shop, saving seats for those who are paying much more for the fruit desserts (HK$20-35).
...
At the same time, Hui Lau Shan is facing a 'crisis of identity' because it has violated the Urban Services Department's regulations on herbal tea shops. ... The statistical growth of herbal tea shops would look very different without Hui Lau Shan, which has deviated from official as well as popular conceptions of herbal tea shops. The case of Hui Lau Shan makes it necessary to look at the popularity of these shops in another light.
Sun, Celine (2012-08-07). "Dessert chain offers place to chill out". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2014-03-25. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
The article notes:
Hong Kong dessert shop chain Hui Lau Shan is speeding up its expansion across the border with the aim of becoming a popular hangout modelled after Starbucks.
The company, known for its 'mango platter' and 'glutinous rice balls in mango juice' dishes, plans to more than double its total number of shops to 250 by the end of next year. More than half of the new shops will be located on the mainland targeting young consumers.
...
In 1992, the brand launched a new product, 'mango sago', which was well received by customers and earned it a reputation for top-notch fresh fruit desserts. The company now offers about 100 kinds of fruit desserts, drinks and snacks, and operates roughly 110 shops in Hong Kong, mainland China and Malaysia.
In July 2007, the third-generation owner of the family business sold Hui Lau Shan to Malaysian private equity firm Navis Capital Partners.
...
Hui Lau Shan opened the first mainland shop in Shenzhen in 2008 and has since set up outlets in Shanghai, Hangzhou, Suzhou, Guangzhou, Zhongshan and Foshan. In the first half of this year, it opened four shops in Beijing and two in Tianjin.
Do, Je-hae (2017-07-12). "Asia's hot desserts now". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
The article notes:
I was thrilled when Hui Lau Shan, a chain of dessert shops from Hong Kong with more than a 50-year history, finally arrived in Korea earlier this year. The store specializes in mango-based snacks and desserts and is one of the most popular destinations for Korean visitors to Hong Kong. Hui Lau Shan has been expanding outside of Hong Kong and China for some time, but its arrival in Korea was unexpected because I didn't think there was a huge market for snacks made out of mango in Korea. Every time I go to Hui Lau Shan near my home, there is a long line of people waiting for their orders.
There are many Hui Lau Shan outlets in Hong Kong, and my go-to store is the one near Harbour City, the largest shopping mall in Hong Kong. One of my favorite things to do in Hong Kong is to enjoy its iconic skyline from the Avenue of Stars and take a long walk with a Hui Lau Shan mango drink. It's comforting to know that I can get my favorite mango drink anytime without traveling all the way to Hong Kong.
Hang, Kristie (2019-08-26). "Hong Kong's Most Famous Mango Dessert Shop Opens in Irvine". Eater. Archived from the original on 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
The article notes:
Hong Kong’s famous dessert shop Hui Lau Shan opened its first California outpost in Irvine on August 25. The popular mango-centric dessert chain, which has more than 300 locations around the world, brings its signature fresh fruit desserts to Orange County, with plans to eventually expand into the greater Los Angeles area and San Diego.
Hui Lau Shan has come a long way from its roots as a traditional herbal tea shop in the early 1960s, where it sold herbal teas, herbal jellies, and other nutritional supplements. At the time, there was high demand for Hui Lau Shan’s tortoise jelly, or guilinggao, and bird’s nest, as they were said to have numerous beauty and health benefits. It wasn’t until 1992 when the establishment added fresh mango sago (a kind of starch extracted from palm stems) desserts to their menu that it became an international sensation.
In Hong Kong, there is a branch of Hui Lau Shan virtually everywhere you turn. The bright, eye-catching yellow and red signs are more popular than Starbucks or McDonalds. Hui Lau Shan is popular for being a casual, affordable, and take-out friendly dessert shop. Each store is so busy in Hong Kong that it’s nearly impossible to secure a seat inside, with many people having to share tables with strangers if they choose to dine in.
Long, Katherine Khashimova (2019-12-02). "Crazy about mango desserts? At Hui Lau Shan in Redmond, 5,040 mangoes a week make it summer all year 'round". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
The article notes:
In its home base of Hong Kong, the much-loved Hui Lau Shan chain is Starbucks-like in its ubiquity. What began as a roving snack trolley in the 1960s vaulted into global popularity a decade ago and now has nearly 300 branches across the Pacific Rim.
The cheery Redmond franchise, the first full-fledged Hui Lau Shan outpost in the U.S., opened in July. Owner Lisa Li is targeting a Dec. 8 opening day for a new branch in downtown Bellevue.
Quek, Eunice (2020-01-17). "Mango dessert specialist Hui Lau Shan back in Singapore". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-03. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
The article notes:
Famed Hong Kong dessert chain Hui Lau Shan - best known for its mango desserts - is back in Singapore, after closing its Orchard Road store 15 years ago.
Its first outlet opened on Wednesday at Nex, followed by two more to open soon at Chinatown Point and Jem mall.
...
According to the brand's website, Hui Lau Shan was founded in Hong Kong in the 1960s. Back then, it sold herbal jelly and herbal tea.
In the 1980s, the menu expanded with the addition of dishes such as red bean jelly and pan-fried radish cake. In 1992, Hui Lau Shan created the recipe for its popular mango sago.
Cheng, Chen (2001). "Eating Hong Kong's Way Out". In Cwiertka, Katarzyna Joanna; Walraven, Boudewijn (eds.). Asian Food: The Global and the Local. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 0-8248-2544-6. Retrieved 2020-05-03.
The article notes:
The new wave of herbal tea shops adopt names reminiscent of a traditional world that customers could be assured of their Chinese origins – Hui Lau Shan (héui làuh sàan – a famous herbal tea shop in Yuen Long, New Territories before the 1970s), ...
...
Herbal teas have been sidelined by freshly squeezed and blended fruit juices and desserts. Hui Lau Shan prospered with their sago fruit mix and expanded to almost 40 branches between 1992–94.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hui Lau Shan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Eater, "In Hong Kong, there is a branch of Hui Lau Shan virtually everywhere you turn. The bright, eye-catching yellow and red signs are more popular than Starbucks or McDonalds."
From a 2004 Routledge book, "Hui Lau Shan has been the most prominent of all among Chinese herb tea permit holders."
From The Seattle Times, "In its home base of Hong Kong, the much-loved Hui Lau Shan chain is Starbucks-like in its ubiquity. What began as a roving snack trolley in the 1960s vaulted into global popularity a decade ago and now has nearly 300 branches across the Pacific Rim."
Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. When nominated for deletion, the article contained several promotional sentences but the article overall was not so promotional that it should have been deleted.
Thank you, Dps04 (talk · contribs), for your substantial work on cleaning up and expanding the article.
Cunard (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin / other participants: please compare the article as it is with the version when it was tagged for deletion. I have rewritten much of the article, and I believe this has addressed the advertising concerns of the nominator. See above for my arguments that the article has passed GNG. --Dps04 (talk) 12:49, 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 delete. Sandstein 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy John Parker[edit]

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

This bio of a technical writer makes no real claim to notability. The three sources provided are 1.a brief para mentioning his book 2. A footnote mentioning a book for which he was not the principal author and 3. I’ve no idea what this source is intended to show. Notability absolutely not demonstrated. Apart from this I see mentions of his books but no reviews and nothing else. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 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. Sandstein 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Collins (musician)[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claims attempted here are things like "close to the historic accomplishment of having released the most albums in Canada by a Newfoundland recording artist" (which is no part of our notability criteria per se, and not even sourced as accurate), being "spotlighted" on national telecasts whose existence I've been completely unable to actually verify, touring that isn't supported by any media coverage to actually get it over NMUSIC #4 (where the test is not stating that the tour happened, but showing that the tour got media coverage), airplay on unspecified radio stations (where NMUSIC #11 requires playlisting by a national radio network), and nominations for regional music awards that don't pass NMUSIC #8. Literally the only source in the entire article is his own self-published website about himself, which is not a notability-supporting source -- and even on a ProQuest search, nearly all I'm able to find is glancing namechecks of his existence. I was able to find one piece in The Telegram that's actually about him, but one piece isn't enough all by itself. There are also some WP:COI issues here, as the article has been edited in the past by "Kcollinsmusic". Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Only[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim to passage of WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. The strongest notability claim here is topping a genre chart in !earshot, but earshot is a non-IFPI-certified WP:BADCHART that does not count toward NMUSIC's charting criterion. The only other thing here is that he toured, but NMUSIC #4 is not automatically passed by every artist whose article just says they toured -- it requires you to show evidence that he got a GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about the tour (e.g. concert reviews), but those are entirely absent. Of the just four footnotes here, one is the section of CBC Radio 3's website that used to allow artists to upload their own music and EPKs for publicity purposes and one is his own self-written and self-published press release, so neither of them represent notability-assisting coverage — and of the two hits that do represent real third person journalism in real media, one is a short blurb in an alt-weekly. So there's only one genuinely strong source (Saskatoon Star-Phoenix) on offer here, and that's not enough to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; his coverage in No Depression and Exclaim! was of the press release variety. Caro7200 (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Van Winkle[edit]

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

mid level government executive; all the sources are written by her , or are mere notices DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here level in government is not notable and there are not other signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurang Raval[edit]

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

spammy pr for a non notable person with 0 coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Detele: Per nom. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and No WP:SIGNCOV definitely self promotion QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — promo piece for a non notable individual with no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Feld[edit]

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

promotional article about a non notable businessman, no coverage, all sources are just passing mentions or funding, acquisition announcements and press releases Praxidicae (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn as reverted -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajith[edit]

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

Citing only self-published sources such as the subject's Instagram, Twitter, and Blog page, this article contains no indication that its subject is notable. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After reviewing the article history, it was a disambiguation page until some IP edits of 26 March and 14 April 2020‎ (UTC) when the topic was changed to a BLP by anonymous IPs 49.15.20x.xxx. I should probably not have filed this as an AfD. Instead I should have just reverted it to the revision as of 12:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close and restore the redirect. Praxidicae (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. Seems like an ordinary person, with no claim of significance in the article. No sources turn up upon search, except twitter and facebook ones."he posted a few pictures of a bird on his Twitter page,[1] and he has a Facebook account" Really? (Remark: this page was created from a disambig page. Would probably be a good idea to revert to the disambig page instead) --Dps04 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing my speedy delete vote as the disambig page has been restored. --Dps04 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no need now, IP additions reverted and dab restored the IP is already prevented from creating the page under his own name. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it Sajith Sivanandan needs a look too In ictu oculi (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is a given name ~~dab~~ page for four people.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this given-name page (not a dab page). PamD 08:21, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nickarth[edit]

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

I can't find any real sources about this person, in any language. The WV Chronicle hasn't actually published anything since 1918, this iteration is some SEO nonsense. MusicTalkers, etc...are unreliable and also blackhat SEO spam as are the other language sources. Everything that would be considered "reliable" (which is really stretching it) are press releases, which aren't independent. Praxidicae (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly self-generated PR junk. I removed too many to count that were non-RS press releases and the like. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's really a shame that we have to wade through all this trash that marketing/SEO agencies pay to publish and try to pass off as legitimate journalism. I really feel sorry for all the true journalists out there, it cheapens their life's honest work.. Honestly, it cheapens the work of this artist, too. I suspect their work is worth a lot more than this. I had stronger language to use, but thought it better to leave it at this. Waggie (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 04:45, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CxBx-Reloaded[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Prod'ded as such, but article still doesn't have any reliable, independent sources about the product. The 94 Google hits[6] don't really contain much that helps here: lots of fora, download sites, and the like, but nothing better. This seems to be the best Google News result: a very passing mention, basically verifying the existence but nothing further. Other articles give similar passing mentions. A substantial discussion of the emulator in reliable sources seems to be missing. Fram (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I also looked and couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The original project, Cxbx, gets mentioned a few times in reliable sources but it also lacks significant coverage. Woodroar (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you count more than 99 Google hits here? [7]. This is exactly the same search, but instead of 99 I got 99.500. Your search engine is biased (that's common, search engines "adapt" to your most common kind of search to provide information that's usually related to your "taste" and latest search content you have visited), maybe try with an anonymous/private tab or with a different browser? Also, I'm pretty sure even the link to Github alone is enough information (as it's the entire source code of the project), not exactly sure what else is expected from the article at this point. Literalmente.game (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking for any mentions online, but significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That means in-depth articles discussing the subject from reputable video games or tech media, books, magazines, newspapers, and so on. We aren't interested in primary sources by the developer (like everything he puts on Github), random YouTubers, user-generated-content like Wikis, emulation databases, or sources like that. See WP:VG/S and WP:RS for more information about our sourcing requirements. Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great answer, then you care to explain how this article isn't listed for deletion as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_(emulator)

1st reference is random Youtuber, 2nd is the developer own compatibility tracker, The FAQ is from the developer site, Polygon article doesn't cover anything, it's just a copy of the text and video from the DSOGAMING (which is funny, because CxBx-Reloaded has one article just like that as well, here https://www.dsogaming.com/videotrailer-news/dinos-crisis-3-and-jet-set-radio-future-running-with-60fps-on-the-xbox-emulator-cxbx-reloaded/). Literalmente.game (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around and found more reliable sources talking about Xenia, but they do appear rather trivial. That article does look like a candidate for deletion, sure. Keep in mind that the English Wikipedia has over 6 million articles and nearly all of us are unpaid volunteers, and also not omnicient.

Woodroar (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you can't actually expect this kind of coverage from the regular listed sources because they'll never be able to do it (they simply can't, they have no knowledge about anything they cover to go beyond the "trivial" aspect of this particular subject). If I go right now article by article about similar topics, I'm sure I can find the same problems you're pointing out on both Xenia and CxBx-Reloaded. But as I've said: the issue isn't exactly on the articles themselves, but that this subject can only be covered properly by developers, so both articles should still remain on wikipedia as the references provided on both sides are actually as complete as they could get. Literalmente.game (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's not possible on Wikipedia. We only write about subjects that have been covered in significant detail by independent, reliable sources. That's our General Notability Guideline, which has broad support across the project. (Of course, as you pointed out, some articles do slip through. That's exactly why we have the Articles for Deletion process.) EmuGen or the VG Emulation Wiki are probably better suited for niche emulation subjects like CxBx-Reloaded. Woodroar (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No reliable coverage = no article. Most notable software gets covered by reliable sources in one way or another, but CxBx-Reloaded is nowhere to be found (with exactly zero hits via WP:VG/SE). I'm sure a lot of work has gone into the software, but the same applies to the dozens (if not hundreds) of similar pieces of software out there. To say that the article "can only be covered properly by developers" (as Literalmente.game, who I therefore would believe to be one of the developers of CxBx-Reloaded, states above) is rather grotesque, considering that we're on Wikipedia, which should not be used as a soapbox. A self-hosted Wiki or Wiki-alike should do the trick instead. Finally, I agree with Literalmente.game that [[Xenia {emulator)]] should similarly be deleted; although some reliable sources do touch on the topic, it is usually "Red Dead Redemption emulated on PC" or a rehash of a development blog post, insufficient for a separate article. IceWelder [✉] 15:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Ram Prajapati[edit]

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

The article as it exists has no good sources. Tried to find some reliable/secondary sources to replace with, but it appears the subject is not notable. This kind of edit from the only maintainer of the article adds to that suspicion. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be notable one day, but not yet. Mccapra (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasa, Ghana[edit]

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

Place doesn’t exist on Google Maps, and there is absolutely no coverage of it elsewhere (besides the book), and I don’t think that a book alone can verify whether the place is legally recognised. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I was too strict regarding the deletion criteria. Again. 🤦 RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being legally recognized is not the criteria since Wikipedia aims at being a gazateer. Anywhere that can be said to be "a very substantial town" at any point passes our notability guidelines, places do not have to be significant now. A book published by an academic publisher is a reliable source, even if the place has vanished without a modern trace.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Clear pass of NPLACE. Smartyllama (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the book cited is available for preview on google books and shows multiple mentions. Clearly notable. PamD 12:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books link doesn't quite work - I have to click to move to next page and then go back. Can anyone here help and tweak the link? PamD 12:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Nika2020 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very hard to search for because of some dumb space program, but the book seems verifiable, see the mention here: [8] SportingFlyer T·C 15:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that this ever got considered for nomination while we have articles on places in California that never were more than one house is a show of the extreme Amerocenticism and presentism of Wikipedia. The numbers are not clear, but it seems this place likely had more than 300 people at one point in the 19th-century. It had a mosque.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep notwithstanding JPL's gazetteer remakrs above. I have checked in GEONames, and they do have an entry for "Nasa" in Ghana, and it does locate to a village just slightly NW of the originally supplied coordinates (which were the same as GEONames but with the seconds dropped). Given that we have a source for a history and from the description, there's no reason to think they aren't the same place, so this seems verified enough. Unfortunately there appears to be a paucity of sources for Ghanaian geography (for example, from what I can see their census does not give numbers for villages— I could be wrong about though). Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Tell[edit]

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

There are two main problems here. (1) This article is a machine translation from its Russian counterpart (translated using Yandex Translate). Per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, "an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing". (2) I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV. I originally BLPPRODed the article, the user added four "useful links". Only 1 has information beyond a list of books. The information at that site is copied from here, a site that no longer exists (questionable reliability). MrClog (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. While the subject plausibly might meet WP:NPROF, the almost-unsourced article with machine-translation issues does not much help towards creating a useful article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen Supranational[edit]

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

Just another beauty pageant. Lacks any significant or in-depth coverage or mentions. Fails WP:GNG. More of a promotional attempt. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the best coverage I could find were trivial mentions in a few newspapers, but nothing with enough content to actually base an article around. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and promotional. ---Richie Campbell (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability found online. Seems to be a promotional gimmick dscotty26 (talk) 18:17, 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) 14:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aneesha Madhok[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She just casted to a film, no notable works yet. A case of WP:TOOSOON - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we’re not here to promote student and early-career aspirational performers. Mccapra (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 15:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePromotional article. Only in depth coverage is a school magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscotty26 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Though there are write-ups on the subject in The New Indian Express, The Indian Express and The Times of India, I agree that it is WP:TOOSOON in terms of WP:NACTOR. If she meets NACTOR in the future, I would certainly like to see the article re-created. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StaJe (artist)[edit]

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

non notable rapper. Created by 10 edits and go, new editor. Nothing in RS except press releases and PR junk. Fails MUSICBIO MistyGraceWhite (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article creator has posted this on the talk page of this AfD: "Hi there, I see the StaJe artist wiki page was proposed for deletion. The article has been considerably improved with reliable information. The artist is soon to be signed by one of the big recording labels and the article will be further improved. Please consider giving some time for further improvement to come up to the policies' expectations (we're making out best right now). Thank you." That sounds like they may have a COI. Richard3120 (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we need to clean up the COI then and get the autobio stuff out, but this is a useful article for hip hop fans. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The editor altered my comment above to remove their original statement that some of the sourcing came from the artist's PR agency. Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yes, we will need to remove those. Fans need to write these articles. But from hip hop music fan's standpoint, I wouldn't delete this. I'd clean it up. Many other musicians' articles have the same issues, but I believe in improving rather than deleting. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete delete. Yuck. More crappy PR spam, sourced to, real shocker here, black hat SEO spam. Praxidicae (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious promotional effort based on promotional sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep None of you know anything about rappers. The nominator has a history of deleting notable rappers. How are Yahoo and the London Post fake sources? Notable music artist magazine publications (Respect Magazine, Clout News, Hypefresh). Published with Ritz Herald too. And StaJe is not just a rapper. He is a singer-song writer too who's been featured with Grammy-award winning producer David “Youngin” Kim on single “War”. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't destroy hip hop articles when you know nothing about hip hop. This is unacceptable bias against youth culture that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. You are all further contributing to Wikipedia's gross inequities and diversity problems. No hip hop experts were consulted, and this is a major flaw in Wikipedia's system. It's like a major Apple product getting deleted if everyone votes delete due to the voters all being non tech-savvy guys who know nothing at all about Apple.

MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. Wikipedia does have a bias problem, but that doesn't mean we accept BLPs that have 0 reliable sources. The London Post is not reliable, nor is Ritz Herald or the others, it's a black hat SEO operated site to inflate the importance of various firms clients and the Yahoo sources are press releases and literally are identified as such. If you want to rage about Wikipedia, there are other places to do that, but not at this AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- And that's not how this works. You can't say that a few bad sources invalidate all the sources. Some of them are reliable sources. And there is no rule that says you can't rage about Wikipedia on an AFD. I'm just pointing out the facts and trying to be fair. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Sources are as good as any others. Subject perfectly notable. Happy Padded Hippy (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)— Happy Padded Hippy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sock strike Praxidicae (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think black hat spam is a valid source, you shouldn't be editing or weighing in on BLPs. Praxidicae (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well that's not for you to decide. If you have a problem with one or two of the sources you can make changes to the article. Deletion is one big leap and this source is A-OK. Happy Padded Hippy (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources are trash including "kake.com" as you would know if you bothered to read it, as it clearly displays a disclaimer that it's self published. Praxidicae (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Working with a person who has won a Grammy does not make the subject automatically notable – see WP:INHERITED. The Yahoo source is not independent, it's a repost of a PR on Accesswire [9] which states that it has been provided by StaJe's clothing company, so it's obviously biased. The London Post is not a real newspaper (I'm from London), it's a website staffed by five people that spouts any news item that it is sent for money... this can be seen by the complete lack of real news on its website. And where would we find a "hip hop expert" anyway? Richard3120 (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You talk to Wikipedia users who contribute a lot to hip hop articles. Ain't that obvious? MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I contribute to a lot of articles on British post-punk/new wave artists... I wouldn't presume that makes me an expert on them. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look, all these are notable hip hop sources. Respect magazine is huge and so is Medium magazine. They speak on most of the A-list artists. The unreliable sources are unreliable, but that does not invalidate the valid sources.

Respect (magazine): https://respect-mag.com/2020/05/labels-are-going-crazy-over-staje/
Hypefresh: https://www.hypefresh.co/new-song-redlight-staje/
Playbuzz: https://www.playbuzz.com/beethyc10/delivering-all-things-hip-hop-artist-staje-breaks-new-ground
Medium: https://medium.com/authority-magazine/rising-music-star-staje-i-would-like-to-see-less-one-household-family-homes-here-in-the-us-c415d60e536b?sk=ad05253dfb368d58743e2127c7c8d3fc

MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

every single one of those is PR SEO soam. Medium isn’t an RS. For someone who is making condescending and frankly ridiculous attacks on other editors knowledge, you know very little about sourcing. Perhaps you should read up on it instead of going on tirades. Praxidicae (talk) 15:43, 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) 14:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doyin Okupe[edit]

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

non notable advisor. Nothing indepth in RS to pass GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see how the subject of this article meets our notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP!E. All of the article's sources are about the subject's appointment. The subject has not been discussed outside of this and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a "special advisor" to a president is not in and of itself a free pass over WP:NPOL — it can get a person in the door if you're able to write and source some genuine substance about his political impact, but does not guarantee him an article if all you write is that he existed and all you show for sourcing is the immediate blip of coverage announcing his initial appointment to the job. If that's all he's got for sources, then he's just a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable low level political aid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as he is a former political aide. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:36, 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 merge to Worms (series). Or to Team17, whichever the merging editors prefer. Sandstein 14:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Davidson (game designer)[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears to be notable for one event only, which is creating the Worms franchise. In this case, it may as well be appropriate to redirect it to that article~~, or it could be deleted and his name can remain on the disambiguation page while pointing to the franchise~~. Free Media Kid! 07:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid! 07:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid! 07:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A franchise is not a single event; it's quite the opposite as the essence of a franchise is that there are multiple parts. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same Andrew Davidson that the article is about? ApLundell (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. While it may look like a conflict of interest, if we look at the photographs of the user on his user page and Andy Davidson, we can see that the game designer has darker hair and thik eyelashes. The Wikipedia user's face, however, appears to be less elongated. Free Media Kid! 01:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Based on what I found after a few seconds of looking for reliable sources after clicking the link at the top of the AFD for Wikipedia reliable sources. https://www.engadget.com/2012-04-02-worms-creator-davidson-rejoins-team17-after-14-year-absence.html https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2011/oct/17/worms-and-team17 https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/history-of-team17-and-worms/3/ Dream Focus 02:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC) 16:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Andrew; a franchise is not one single event. His work (Worms (1995 video game)) is notable, and he has "played a major role in co-creating" it. Ahmad^talk 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete, 'Worms' and the franchise it's spawned are undeniably notable, but this entire article is about Worms. There doesn't seem to be any separate notability. It could all be folded into the 'Worms' article. (The three links DreamFocus provides above after "a few seconds" of searching, don't actually address this concern. ) ApLundell (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been mistaken to call a franchise a single (albeit large-scale) event, but that does not mean that the article should be kept. I did mean that I cannot think of some other event that the British game designer was notable for. I apologize for my confusing language. I just struck out my second option in my first comment because I think it can be useful as a redirect. Free Media Kid! 01:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Team 17. Both Team 17 and Worms are clearly notable, and Andy's participation in both is significant [10] but to that end, he has little else for notability going for him. Thus he should be searchable term, named out at both Team 17 and Worms, but not a standalone article. --Masem (t) 22:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Team 17. Of the reliable coverage I could find there is not much that was significant or in-depth enough to be notable for his own article (WP:GNG). The mentions of him were either his creation of the Worms franchise or that he returned to Team 17 in 2012, nothing in-depth. [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Worms or (less preferably) Team17. Davidson is known for creating Worms and he now works for Team17, but that's the most there is. Not enough significant coverage to justify a separate article. IceWelder [✉] 15:59, 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 merge to Malian Solidarity Bank. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banque de l'Habitat du Mali[edit]

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

Looks like the article has been an un-cited stub since it's creation in 2007. I did a search for anything that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Nothing came up that I could find though. Except for trivial coverage in a few books and articles in Google Scholar that are brief mentions and fails notability standards because they aren't in-depth. Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - [22] the bank was at one time notable. mismanagement of finances led to an irreversable bankruptcy 10 years ago. was created with the help of foreign assistance to be a housing bank. but it used the money for other things. There are legit sources but they are all in French. maybe it can go under one of the other habitat bank sections for example cote d'ivore (which is the only one that didn't dissolve into bankruptcy). In French wikipedia there may be a case for an article, but I don't think many users from that part of the world will be looking up info on the company in English.Grmike (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
That comment appears to violate both WP:NTEMP and WP:NONENG. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of WP:NONENG. I imagine the need for good English language sourcing would be even more important when it comes to notability then it would in general. Since I assume the subject should be notable enough for English readers specifically. Otherwise, it would be to broad, narrow, or something along those lines for the intended audience. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added new sources relating to the bank. Just because the bank is not well known in English-speaking countries does not mean that it does not deserve an article. As long as proper, verifiable sourcing can be found, it does not matter what language the sources are in, or where the topic of the article is located. Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 18:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added are extremely trivial. Lack of in-depth coverage anywhere, English or not, does matter to if they "deserve" an article or not. Only basic, trivial coverage means they don't. Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malian Solidarity Bank (Banque malienne de solidarité) – was incorporated into the BMS in 2016 (link in French). --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what good it does to merge it into an article that's questionably notable itself, but it's better then nothing I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 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 keep. Sandstein 17:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigandine: The Legend of Runersia[edit]

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

Unreleased RPG game on Nintendo switch. WP:TOOSOON MistyGraceWhite (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I am opposed. It's releasing in less than two months. And I've seen other small or niche games on various platforms be permitted articles well before their release dates. Also, WP:TOOSOON says it's an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy, so it seems a weak reason to delete the article by itself. RGApworth (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting to add the proposer inexplicably nominated this article for deletion a second time already. RGApworth (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An upcoming game with a release date of June 25, as in next month, isn't exactly WP:TOOSOON. The WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up several, independent RS'es, including Siliconera, Nintendo Life and RPGamer. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as a sequel to Brigandine: The Legend of Forsena. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why this page was marked for deletion. Wikipedia has had many pages on upcoming game projects and this one is close to release. I think whoever posted the deletion notice jumped the gun a bit.Rogue Commander (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing is available from a quick Google. Not a TOOSOON case at all, since its release is merely a month away. IceWelder [✉] 08:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Theres dedicated coverage from Gematsu and RPGsite already in the article itself. Both websites are reliable per WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Paradox society 01:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kumal people[edit]

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

I tried to Google around and see if there might be a path to cleaning this up quickly. It doesn't seem like there are enough good sources to make that possible. The only source cited within the article is a Blogspot post. One potential alternative could be merging it into Kumhar if someone else can find sufficient citations as it seems like they may be closely related, but I do not know enough about the subject matter to even understand if that is actually the right home for this content. I have no doubt that the Kumal are a real ethnic group but I think the page needs to be rewritten from the ground up. As it is currently written, it does not fit encyclopedic style. I'd be happy to help with copyediting and style if there is another editor who wants to take up citation-finding and starting a new draft from scratch. But for now I think the existing page should be deleted. Paradox society 07:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 07:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 07:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 07:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article could always be trimmed down to a one-sentence stub saying the Kumal are a social group of Nepal, and that there were 121,000 of them at the time of the 2011 census.^[1]

References

^ Government of Nepal. National Planning Commission Secretariat. Central Bureau of Statistics (2012). National Population and Housing Census 2011 (National Report) (PDF). Kathmandu. p. 144. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-04-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 12:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify. Here's a source[23] that could be added as "Further reading" for re-building the article based on a RS. –Austronesier (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I have removed the copyvio and added some sources to verify the basic facts. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

System Crash (TV series)[edit]

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

Appears to be a minor television series without coverage in reliable sources. No references at all, nor could I find them in a search. Fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by YTV#Comedy series per WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 08:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Keep As per usual, Bearcast is the royalty of Canadian television information around here and has improved the article in ways being south of the border I could not. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just to be clear, this is a 14 year old article that was written to old standards — in the 2000s, articles were often exempted from actually having to cite any sources to show the topic's notability so long as their existence was verifiable. Yes, that was incredibly stupid of us, which is exactly why our inclusion and sourcing standards have been tightened up in the intervening years — but that does mean we have a lot of old, bad articles still waiting to be cleaned up. That said, for a 20-year-old show the best sources won't be out on the Google — media coverage from back then isn't sitting out on open web anymore, and has to be retrieved from news archives like ProQuest or newspapers.com — and within just two minutes on ProQuest, I was able to find and add articles from two of Canada's top five gold standard newspapers. And if it was that easy, then it's very likely that additional sources can be found in databases I don't have access to which archive other publications not in Canadian Newsstand. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat, Even tho I wasn't around pre-2010 even I know Wikipedia was very different then to what it is now, Bearcat has since improved and although it could do with more work WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Sourcing the article is fine and imho meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 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 Already G5'd. by Moneytrees as a mass copyvio nuke action ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thuthuka Mthembu[edit]

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

Plays a minor role in a soap opera. Not notable enough to pass NACTOR MistyGraceWhite (talk) 06:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's questionable, it is at most a supporting role. Considering Uzalo is the most watched show in South Africa, she is notable, as she has been on the show for over a year now. The article lacks (sufficient) citations, which is the major issue – a "sources exist" template would suffice, as I've done a search and a reasonable number of useable references popped up. However, if the user who created the article or other contributors do not add content/refs to the article, I'm afraid it'll probably be deleted. AshMusique (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:33, 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 procedural close. The page has been speedily deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msikaba Bridge[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The construction is not even in the first phase, it will be at least 4 years till it is completed. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep proposed project sourced. (Article needs re-write). Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applies here as there are many "proposed, planned" pages.Djflem (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A construction project doesn’t need to have been finished to be notable, and there are adequate sources to support this one. Mccapra (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable proposed construction project. I mean: "The Msikaba Bridge is a proposed bridge that if built will be the largest cable-stayed bridge in South Africa." LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kwon Do-jin[edit]

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

unknown youtuber. PROD removed by creator without any changes to the article. Hence AFD. Fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there’s nothing here to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no notability. Alex (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my original PROD is still valid. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet a notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Okonkwo[edit]

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

Youth footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Govvy (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify makes the most sense as it's not improbable he will be notable within six months, but for now this is WP:TOOSOON - all coverage of him was basically tabloids/not sigcov. SportingFlyer T·C 18:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GiantSnowman. Lettler^hello 23:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:36, 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. Sandstein 17:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khayal Dzhaniev[edit]

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

A BLP without the required level ofsourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the article very useful, Dzhaniev is a rising kickboxer and already a top fighter. Unfortunately the Liverkick rankings are gone (the site was removed), but I can confirm he was top 10 in 2015 after beating lightweight legend Buakaw Banchamek. At Liverkick it was enough to beat a top 10 kickboxer to rank higher than him. 26-year old, signed by Glory (UFC), and with 7 fights in Kunlun Fight (Bellator). What do you say it's wrong? .karellian-24 21:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Liverkick rankings Buakaw Banchamek was not a ranked fighter when they fought[24], so beating him wouldn't have catapulted him into the top 10, especially when Dzhaniev had lost his previous fight. Can you please show me how he meets WP:NKICK or WP:GNG? The coverage I found seemed like routine sports reporting. I know he is not currently ranked, so can you provide any evidence of him being ranked high enough to show notability? Papaursa (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kickboxing rules a bit crap. Superkombat and Kunlun Fight should also be on the list, since they were better than even the new K-1, basically runners-up after Glory. Do you really think Dzhaniev couldn't win a shitty ISKA world title? Winning ISKA, WMC, PKA, WAKO-Pro and WBC Muay Thai is nothing big. Winning a Glory, Superkombat, Kunlun Fight etc championship is. Dzhaniev won Buakaw Banchamek and Christian Baya (also Julio Lobo recently, and before Niclas Larsen and many, many Chinese), I can show you shitty fighters who are winning ISKA/WAKO-Pro titles in the shittest regional promotions with 0 production and no TV. He was definitely a top 20, top 15 probably lightweight at some point. Dzhaniev is pretty good to hold 7 ISKA/WAKO-Pro titles if he wants. Those names are not even bodies anymore in kickboxing, they don't sanction anything like in boxing. It is not important to win such a title, only if you don't fight in Kunlun Fight/Glory in his case. Only WKN is still decent, not so many bums are fighting for "world" belts. Dzhaniev fought a lot in Chelyabinsk, not in Moscow, then since 2015 in China. Something more: if the rules for kickboxing would be the same with MMA, he would pass since Kunlun Fight (and not only, also Superkombat and Glory of Heroes, Wu Ling Feng not really) are a kind of Bellator. He has 7 fights in Kunlun Fight. We should have equal rules, not just fighting for belts... 70% of the MMA fighters at least are shitter than Dzhaniev, especially the Euro bums! Here kickboxing is bigger in Europe and Asia, than United States. .karellian-24 12:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also winning over superstar Buakaw Banchamek even today, is big. It is like winning against Conor McGregor in the last years. How is not that big? Right now in kickboxing we only have 1 independent rankings site, this is a problem. I am watching kickboxing since at least 15 years. .karellian-24 12:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't completely disagree with you about the various organizations, but you need to show that he meets either the notability criteria for kickboxers (WP:NKICK) or WP:GNG. The fact that you don't like the existing criteria is irrelevant, as is your personal opinion of a fighter. Of course, you can go to WT:NSPORT and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force and seek a change of the kickboxer notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:NKICK. My search, in English, did not find the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I found fight results and coverage, but I don't think that's sufficient to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 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.

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sprinklr. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sprinklr deal controversy[edit]

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

This information is already in the Sprinklr history, and as a ~~narrowly reported local~~ regional Indian political dispute, doesn't warrant its own article. Seems to be a POV fork that violates WP:NPOVFACT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criterion for including something in Wikipedia is its coverage in WP:RS. The entry lists 19 WP:RS, which is enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY. nominator seems to be motivated by partisan support for Sprinklr and its founder [Ragy Thomas]] . -- 117.230.19.249 (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.57.82.208 (talk) [reply]
Comment to the admins and other users. I think the User:Timtempleton has a close connection with the sprinklr company and its founder Ragy Thomas. He Just created a Wikipedia page for Ragy Thomas and uploaded an [25] image of him. It shows that he is close to Ragy Thomas and maybe get paid for the page creation. Besides that, the user is monitoring the Wikipedia page of Sprinklr company and its subsidiary. He removes anything negative about the company like here,here and here. Akv007 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - I'm the one who wrote the current description of the data sharing incident that sits in Sprinklr's history section. [[26]] I'm going to have to call WP:NOTHERE on the IP editors and brand new accounts. After this is closed, we can discuss the new accounts and the POV pushing at the Sprinklr article. If it persists against consensus I will request semi-protection. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPA editor Akv007 is also disruptively editing the Ragy Thomas article, making similar accusations. I'm waiting until this is deleted before taking this to ANI and SPI. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this enough to give an opinion about the disposition of this article, but the sources show that the description of this given given by the nominator as a "narrowly reported local Indian political dispute" is very wide of the mark. It has been reported in the national press of a country with a population of over a billion, several times that of the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: Thanks for commenting. I struck the "narrowly reported" part of my nomination to not mislead. My phrasing was imprecise - I mean all the sources basically say the same thing - the deal was challenged by the opposition, and the government disputed the charges. The subject is narrowly covered, not that the reach of the reporting papers is narrow. I can't find anything saying that what was accused actually happened, so my concern is more that this is a politically motivated POV content fork, and fails WP:UNDUE. This info is already in the Sprinklr article. If, however, there was coverage substantiating the charges and providing evidence that indeed there was a violation of patient privacy, this becomes a bigger deal and I'd probably lean weak keep, but probably more to recommending adding more to the Sprinklr article and turning this into a redirect. I hope you get a chance to review the media coverage and the editing history of the creator and defenders. I see from your editing history that you focus more on India articles than I do, so I value your perspective on the sourcing and political background. Cheers! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's more the word "local" that puzzled me. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha - it's a local political dispute for the state of Kerala, population 34 million, rather than a national issue. I'll change it to say regional instead. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment for closer Identical keep votes were posted by two different IP addresses, and one was subsequently deleted. [[27]] [[28]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both IP's are mine, added multiple keep votes by mistake Akv007 (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable; had a great deal of media attention.Kumblu (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC) — Kumblu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment -- Is this political spat really notable enough to warrant an article? On the local/regional issue, the political happenings in Indian states ought to have similar status to those in US States. Would we give similar prominence if this were in Colorado? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We probably would actually, and even more so if it were in California or Texas, which have similar populations to Kerala, but that doesn't mean that we should. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to violate WP:NOT#NEWS, in that all of the sources are primary news reports, but that policy seems to be routinely ignored when it comes to issues deemed important by news sources in Western Anglophone countries. I see no reason why this can't be covered better in context at Sprinklr, as that article is nowhere near large enough to be split on the grounds of size. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has massive notability: via lots of news coverage and legal debate Mywikiupdates (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC) — Mywikiupdates (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge/redirect to Sprinklr, which barely creaks above notability as it is. I note that most editors voting to keep have very little Wikipedia activity, and may be unfamiliar with the proper bases for having two short articles on related topics. BD2412 T 19:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm of two minds on this. Probably a flash-in-the-pan news story with not much to cover which will disappear in a short time. The deal itself without the controversy is probably non-wp:notable, and so we just have the controversy to cover. Seems a bad idea to have a permanent Wikipedia article on that. And so there are not sources with in-depth coverage as wp:GNG prefers. But it has lots of big-source medium-depth coverage. And a redirect would mean placing coverage of what is a big story in India inside of an article on an American corporation which, as BD2412 noted, barely meets wp:notability. I'd prefer and support a redirect/merge to another good place but I don't know where that would be. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wrote what is hopefully a balanced, concise description of the incident in the Sprinklr history. That seems to meet the current needs of acknowledging the criticism without giving it undue weight, and we can always redirect this there if it's not a clear delete consensus. I also noticed there's an article about a pending Indian privacy law Personal Data Protection Bill 2019. If this incident ever rose to more than a political party leveling as of now unsubstantiated charges, and the company was actually charged with something under the proposed law, then that would be a place to add this info as well, and change the redirect. And thank you to the other experienced editors who noticed the new and/or relatively narrowly focused accounts supporting this article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Abnormal amount of IP and SPA votes. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear POVFORK of information already generally available in parent article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless fork. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event,National and international coverage and legal debate.May be need rewriting for NPOV.Electiondata (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article creator. Please check IP addresses and POV editing history. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there does seem to be a lot of coverage. But isn't the management of COVID Data a relatively recent thing? (Rhetorical: it is.) This is more or less a news article about something that has unfolded over the past few months.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars fandom[edit]

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

Before I edited this article, it was clear it existed for no other reason than for Star Wars fans to congregate and defend their toxic actions as of late. I did my best to edit this article to meet Wikipedia's standards, but at the end of the day, this article shouldn't even exist to begin with; we already have Cultural impact of Star Wars. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars, Merge discussion is apparently open, but there is no section for it at the Cultural impact of Star Wars' talk page. The couple of sentences about review bombing can be merged easily to the target, while the rest is just an inferior duplication of the content there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cultural impact of Star Wars as per Devonian Wombat, we can totally fit most of the information out. If you're feeling rather harsh, maybe Redirect. dibbydib (T ･ C) 06:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for sure. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem seems to be editors bickering about the content but merger isn't going to fix that problem. It might make it worse because the "cultural impact" title is looser and vaguer than "fandom" and the scope is less clear. It is best to follow the sources and there are plenty of substantial sources which are focussed on the fandom, including:

Fan Phenomena: Star Wars
Star Wars Generations: A Celebration of Fandom
The Star Wars Fandom
Using the Force: Creativity, Community and Star Wars Fans
Fan Cultures
Canonicity and Authority in Star Wars Fandom
Disney, Lucasfilm and Star Wars online fandom in the 21st Century
Why there's still hope for the Star Wars fandom yet

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew's sources above. "Cultural impact" is a broad umbrella, and this franchise's fandom can easily have a standalone article. This article needs to be expanded not to be so recent, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Category:Star Wars fandom exist. There are hundreds if not thousands of articles classified in one of the many fandom categories. Starts at Category:Fandom and expands from there. Category:Cultural impact articles exist also but isn't nearly as common. Information about the fandom, fan things like some of those in the relevant category, belong here, and cultural impact things like how it influenced film making, etc, should be in the other article. Dream Focus 13:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Sure, in theory one could write an article about Star Wars fandom that wasn't just a list of favorite memes and anti-fan grievances, or one that degenerates back to that after a few years of neglect, but I'm doubtful that's going to happen. Star Wars isn't some WP:RECENT fad whose notability remains to be seen... if it was going to attract serious editors interested in developing a worthwhile article about the fandom around it, that would've happened by now. There are hypothetically worthwhile things that WP just isn't going to do. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge fandom is part of the cultural impact and this can be covered well there. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to what Andrew Davidson listed above, here are additional reliable sources that have direct (even more than significant) coverage about Star Wars fandom:

Finding the force of the Star wars franchise : fans, merchandise, & critics, especially chapter "'I am a Jedi' : Star wars fandom, religious belief, and the 2001 census
Star Wars and the history of transmedia storytelling, "Star Wars has reached more than three generations of casual and hardcore fans alike, and as a result many of the producers of franchised Star Wars texts (films, television, comics, novels, games, and more) over the past four decades have been fans-turned-creators... The collection places Star Wars at the center of those studies' projects by examining video games, novels and novelizations, comics, advertising practices, television shows, franchising models, aesthetic and economic decisions, fandom and cultural responses, and other aspects of Star Wars and its world-building in their multiple contexts of production, distribution, and reception... By taking this dual approach, the book focuses on the interconnected nature of corporate production, fan consumption, and transmedia world-building."
The ultimate Star Wars and philosophy : you must unlearn what you have learned, chapter "Episode VII : the fandom awakens"
The power of the force : the spirituality of the Star wars films, chapter "The Phantom menace and fandom mania"
Cult collectors : nostalgia, fandom and collecting popular culture, chapter "Playing with the force: fan identity, cultural capital and Star Wars toy collecting"
Handbook of research on the impact of fandom in society and consumerism, chapter "Sci-fi fandoms in the digital age: star trek, star wars, and doctor who fandoms and social media"
Disney's Star Wars : forces of production, promotion, and reception, chapters "Selling The Force Awakens: fan labor and brand management", "From Star Tours to Galaxy's Edge: immersion, transmediality and 'haptic fandom' in Disney's theme parks", "Rey, Mary Sue, and Phasma too: feminism and fan responses to The force awakens merchandise", "Jafar Wars: fan created paratexts in Alderaan places", "'You die! you know that, right? you don't come back!': fans negotiating Disney's (de)stabilised Star Wars canon"
Fan culture : theory/practice, chapter 'Distressing damsels:' Narrative critique and reinterpretation in Star Wars fanfiction"
I find your lack of faith disturbing : Star Wars and the triumph of geek culture, "...beginning and ending with surprising new readings of Star Wars, the big bang of contemporary fandom."
A galaxy here and now : historical and cultural readings of Star Wars, chapter "Part of our cultural history : fan-creator relationships, restoration and appropriation"
"Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and participatory fandom: mapping new congruencies between the internet and media entertainment culture"
"Whose Film Is It, Anyway? Canonicity and Authority in Star Wars Fandom"
Movie Blockbusters, chapter "Star Wars in Fandom, Film Theory, and the Museum"
Media and Cultural Studies, numerous pages, including this quote: "Star Wars has also been the focal point of an enormous quantity of grassroots media production, becoming the very embodiment of the new participatory culture."
Star Wars, Disney, and the Fandom Menace (article)
Star Wars - The Fandom Editors (article)
How Female Fans Made ‘Star Wars’ Their Own (article)
‘Star Wars’ Doesn’t Belong to George Lucas. It Belongs to the Fans. (article)

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I see a valid search term, but I really don't see how a merge helps. Govvy (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs a lot of work, but the sources found in this AFD discussion are enough to demonstrate this topic is notable. Hog Farm (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does seem like a tricky one. I see the argument for merge/redirect to the cultural impact page and nearly voted in that direction. As a Trekkie personally, I feel like there *should* be an analogous term for Star Wars fans, though there doesn't seem to be such a term as ubiquitous as "Trekkie". As I understand it, there are many more fans of Star Wars than Star Trek, and thus if the SW fandom isn't notable, then how could Trekkie be notable? Stepping back from my personal "well surely Trekkies are notable" bias, I see a decent number of articles about other fandoms, and they are an example of, but distinct from, cultural impacts. I'm in favor of keeping, if the community can work towards expanding and cleaning up, using Trekkie and other existing fandom articles as a guidepost or goal. Paradox society 07:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep. Per sources given above, the question is whether the topic (Star Wars fandom) passes WP:GNG. Given the multiplicity of reliable, independent sources given above, this is an unambiguous pass. Also per above, as the cultural impact of Star Wars is a broader topic than just the fandom, merging would be insufficient. Rollidan (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to be in favor of keeping this article. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vijoo Krishnan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A politician who never elected in state or general election. Other claims are Joint Secretary of All India Kisan Sabha and central committee member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). This is also not enough for his notability. The article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NPOL, and the footnotes are virtually all a reference bombed mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that are not about him. All of those references count for nothing, and the few sources that are actually about Vijoo Krishnan in any trivial way are not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by themselves if all the rest of the sourcing is junk. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : How does this article fail WP:NPOL? There is significant press coverage about him in different Indian languages including English (Which is very evident from the long list of references provided in the article itself). Also refer Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians, Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success. This guy is a central committee member of Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the protest he orchestrated was a national phenomenon. It is also not clear how this article violates WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Agree that there are a lot of primary sources given in the citation list, but there are reliable secondary sources as well. I support questioning/removing the content with primary source citations; nevertheless, the article should not be deleted. - ~ Hrishi ~ (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there's a big difference between media coverage about a person (which assists notability) and media coverage which mentions the person in the process of being about something else (which does not), and nowhere near enough of the sources here fall on the correct side of that line. Secondly, "central committee member" is not the same thing as "leader": the only person who gets to claim "leader" status for the purposes of NPOL is the person who would actually be Prime Minister if the party won an election, and even that person would still have to show better sources than this before they actually qualified for an article. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject seems to be pass WP:GNG comfortably, well above the threshold for WP:BASIC. For instances there are articles covered in mainstream media with the subject in the article as the primary subject.^[1]^[2]^[3] These are hardly trivial, he also seems to be quoted quite frequently in news articles from what I can see. WP:NPOL is a secondary category for determining notability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted in news articles" has nothing to do with establishing a person's notability. A source only goes toward establishing his notability if it is talking about him in the third person, and not if he is doing the speaking about any topic himself in his own words. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are both of those. He seems to be frequently covered and quoted as a figure of authority related to farmer's issues, the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED and mentions details about him which contributes towards WP:SIGCOV; that qualifies him through WP:BASIC. Besides that, he also has enough coverage exclusively in the 3rd person to make him notable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed all these sources and none of them are passing WP:SIGCOV. These sources are of passing mention or WP:ROUTINE coverage of different statement from the newspapers and thus aren't good sources for establishing notability.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are sources where the primary subject of articles is the person in question, passing mentions? WP:ROUTINE is about notability of events and not of persons. WP:BASIC doesn't even necessarily require the topic of articles to be about the subject, just that there should be non-trivial coverage which the subject certainly has here. If you were to say that the article itself is problematic and needs a cleanup, I'd agree but that doesn't mean the subject is not notable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Viswanath, Chandrakanth (13 March 2018). "Meet JNU Alumnus Vijoo Krishnan, Man who inspired 500 Farmers to March 180-km". News 18.
^ Jayan, T. V. (24 January 2020). "Extend PM-Kisan, pension scheme to tenant and old farmers: Vijoo Krishnan". Business Line.
^ P. T, Thufail (26 March 2018). "Red Ants In A Line". Outlook India.

Keep : a) The subject has substantial media coverage. B) There are certain discourses which are marginalized from mainstream media. Farmers issue, Agricultural workers issue, lower caste issues are some of them. Therefore, it's not surprising why in India there isn't much visibility of Peasant leaders. In this kind of a discourse, being a farmer right activist, a specialist writer on Agrarian issues and the office bearer of one of the largest peasant organization in India, what makes the subject relevant is that, he himself is a key person for mainstreaming the farmers or peasant discourse in India. The substantial media coverages for mainstream national media proves that point . Also, a person who has led or mobilized rallies of more than 1 lakh farmers in National Capital, and in other parts of states clearly fit to define the term "leader". The farmer events organized by the subject, that are mentioned in the article were "national phenomenons". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashique2020 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 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) 14:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyder Kazmi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor/director who fails WP:NACTOR as well as WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 04:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't been involved in any notable works Spiderone 18:57, 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) 14:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Place, California[edit]

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

Another round of California "Places", and the song remains the same: GNIS dumps where the topo shows an isolated building or two, and no indication of notability in searching. Mangoe (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The others in this group:

Avila Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Card Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crocker Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dibble Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dunlap Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evans Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fisher Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fletcher Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grizzlie Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Just prod them. Thanks CarlosSuarez for wasting so many people’s time with your negligence and addition of blatantly false information to the encyclopedia. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable communities. –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honest Trailers episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LISTN. While Screen Junkies is a notable channel and this series of theirs is covered at Screen Junkies#Honest Trailers, Wikipedia need not just tabulate their playlist, free of further context and significant independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 02:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN: [29], [30], [31]. The individual trailers seem to get attention and reviews as they appear and, as we don't otherwise have a separate page, this seems better than trying to smush everything into the Screen Junkies page. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/honest-trailers-hits-50th-installment-683435 https://ew.com/article/2015/05/05/honest-trailers-50-shades-of-grey/ were both mentioned in the last AFD. The episodes get coverage in various places, so a list if valid for them. Google news search shows plenty more reliable sources mentioning specific episodes of "honest trailers" such as https://ew.com/movies/2019/02/27/a-star-is-born-honest-trailer/ https://time.com/4268336/honest-trailers-superman-batman/ https://www.cnet.com/news/watchmen-hilariously-lambasted-in-honest-trailers-parody-video/ Dream Focus 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is effectively a valid split from a notable article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:44, 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 Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. Sandstein 17:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aníron[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The sources I can turn up seem to all be in either unreliable sources such as blogs, fansite, reddit, etc. or in primary sources, such as the band's page. I also turned up a version of the music score for this article, but that doesn't demonstrate notability. This song appeared on two albums, with slightly different lyrical content: one whose track listing is at Music of The Lord of the Rings film series#The Fellowship of the Ring, and then at The Very Best of Enya. Hog Farm (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have enough reliable 3rd party secondary indepdent sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative to deletion, we could redirect to Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. I don't think the content is reliable enough for a merge though. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 01:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music of The Lord of the Rings film series. I agree with the nom and John Pack Lambert that the song does not have enough reliable, secondary sources to pass the WP:GNG as an independent article. But, a reasonable target exists, and it is already listed on that page, so a Redirect seems like the better choice here. Rorshacma (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music of The Lord of the Rings film series: Per above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Government of Nepal. National Planning Commission Secretariat. Central Bureau of Statistics (2012). National Population and Housing Census 2011 (National Report) (PDF). Kathmandu. p. 144. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-04-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[2] Viswanath, Chandrakanth (13 March 2018). "Meet JNU Alumnus Vijoo Krishnan, Man who inspired 500 Farmers to March 180-km". News 18.

[3] Jayan, T. V. (24 January 2020). "Extend PM-Kisan, pension scheme to tenant and old farmers: Vijoo Krishnan". Business Line.

[4] P. T, Thufail (26 March 2018). "Red Ants In A Line". Outlook India.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]