Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 May	8 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Union Party[edit]

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

Incredibly minor political party that never elected anybody to any office. Among the sources listed since this article was recreated are from other Marxist/socialist parties (not necessarily the most scholarly or reliable sources), a brief listing in a book of literally every political party in existence in the US, inclusion of letters in a library of obscure Marxist parties, and the obituary of the founder that doesn't even mention the party at all. Simply put, this does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRIT (significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources.). None of these sources establish notability, and all mentions of this party are trivial. Like many minor parties, was of no importance when it existed or now, so the previous situation, where the article was redirected to De Leonism#Political parties, is the clear solution here. Toa Nidhiki05 23:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The cited article on Miller states that he was a founder of the New Unionists. Kablammo (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (recreator) What is "incredibly minor" about it? Let's keep the hyperbole at a minimum, shall we? Wikipedia examines the article and its sources, not one editor's perceived "importance" (to use the wording of the nominator). This nomination sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To address the question of notability: the SLP source is independent of the NUP, it goes into detail the situation in which the group entered the SLP and then left. The Blevins source is substantial (covering two pages) and certainly independent. So there are at least two independent, non-trivial sources required per WP:GNG. The published obituaries of two leading members (there are two in the article) also covered the activities of the party in a significant amount of detail, especially the Miller obituary. Electing a candidate to office is often a secondary goal of many left-wing political groups. The SLP and groups in that tradition placed a high premium on organizing workers in the workplace itself. Lastly, if you could see the article, which was deleted last August, and compare it to this, you would notice that there is far more sourced content than what previously existed. The party's newspaper seems to have been digitized and, if I can get access to it, I would be able to add more detail on their activities.--User:Namiba 15:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American political history is under told. This should be kept Generaluser11 (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for a party on the U.S. left in the 1980s, pulling thousands of votes in a single district isn't all that bad. Article has potential for improvement. http://www.slp.org/pdf/statements/nup.pdf has more detail on the split with SLP, from SLP perspective. An article on NUP, https://books.google.com/books?id=xlIMANRajC0C, p. 117 --Soman (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mýa discography. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Elevation Suite[edit]

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

None of the body of the text is related to this release. Mya's release history and record label troubles are already covered on her page. If you remove this information,. the release is left with just a track listing and is therefore not notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 21:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 21:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mýa discography. I could not find enough coverage in third-party, reliable sources to support this having an independent article. I agree with the nominator that the text about Mýa's decision to become an independent artist is not really related to this EP. This is not even her first release under her label, which is even brought up in this article's lead. A redirect may be helpful for anyone interested in this artist though. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: None of the sources indicated in the article mention the EP. But, I found a few reliable sources where the EP is talked about: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. These sources make the EP good enough to pass WP:NMUSIC. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment coverage of an EP's existance doesn't make it notable for its own article. All of those sources simply talk about Mya releasing an EP and list the track listing. There is no coverage beyond its existance. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to singer or discography. Sourcing consists of interviews and iTune links. No evidence of sufficient independent coverage of the album. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:11, 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 Materialscientist (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Abhishek[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/producer who fails WP:NACTOR as well as WP:GNG. I've checked the articles linked and none of them mention Abhishek. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO (As the selfie infobox photo so easily gives away). When I PRODed this article there were two sources about Abishek, but both were paid press per their disclaimers. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per norm Sanyam.wikime (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 05:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nomination and user is now banned for abusive using multiple account. --Wiki 🎮 Play 09:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor. It is our overabundance of articles on actors that will bring us to having 1 million articles on living people before the year is out unless we do something about the excessive number of articles on non-notable people we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all of the above Spiderone 18:55, 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! 13:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Air Milford[edit]

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

I don't think this meets WP:NCORP. The sourcing in the article is a long ways away from that standard, and I wasn't able to find much additional coverage searching online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual but there is little news about this airline that can be found to be used in the article. The only independent noteworthy is the feature story from 3rd level NZ. So the challenge remains on how to improve the article. CHCBOY (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC) I have since updated the page with new infoCHCBOY (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're still pretty far from meeting NCORP. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it fails NCORP without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.--Theredproject (talk) 13:40, 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. The arguments on both sides could definitely be fleshed out, but the consensus is to keep at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Sullivan (pitchman)[edit]

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

Rathfelder (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person in advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be included but the article needs work the MONTKUSH section reads like it's from his website.

Keep I would argue that Mr. Sullivan meets all three criteria at WP:ENT. For #1, he was a main co-star of PitchMen, among many other minor roles in other productions. For #2, this is maybe weak evidence but he has nearly 40,000 Facebook fans on his official page. For #3, he has been a prolific creator of these pitch infomercials, and along with Billy Mays made a unique mark on the industry with their passionate style (which appears to be how Pitchmen came about in the first place). Agreed, though, that the article needs work and particularly the MONTKUSH section does seem ad-like. Paradox society 07:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, a search of google news reveals some articles from reliable sources that could expand the article. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per those above. Needs improvement but clearly notable. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 20:11, 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) 03:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Ancheril[edit]

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

The notability of the article subject, per WP:NACTOR, has been disputed multiple times by multiple users, leading to deletion proposals and redirection. We need consensus about this matter, through a proper deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IJBall, you had redirected the article with the following edit summary: "BOLDLY redirecting to Rookie Blue - that is Ancheril only "significant" role to date (so fails WP:NACTOR), and the pathetic sourcing at the current article fails to pass WP:BASIC as well, so doesn't qualify for WP:BLP article." If this is this still your position, could you clarify your opinion about "Star Trek Discovery" and the "IGN award" nomination? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni, you had contested the proposed deletion in 2013, stating: "contesting prod. She appears to pass WP:ENT as she has had significant roles in multiple notable TV programs". I assume this is still your position? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a lifetime ago. Don’t think I have a position currently :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect ~~Draftify~~ – My position in cases like these is always the same: write up a potential WP:BLP article like this up in Draftspace, and demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR first. My position has largely not changed – she is not main cast on ST: Discovery (in fact, it looks like she isn't mentioned at the TV series are article at all), and an "IGN Award" is not a notable award. My guess is that she doesn't quality for an article – but try to write up a proper article in Draftspace first to show us (one way or the other). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC) (Vote updated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Merge or delete- This article could be merged into a show she was on; she doesn't meet the notability standards.

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - No
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following - She doesn't have a cult following or large fan base.
Has made unique, prolific, or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - Not really, she only has limited roles in movies. Stay safe, EditQwerty (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)EditQwerty[reply]

Delete or merge, not notable for standalone article per above. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not meet notability standards and I looked around for sources and found one. I see no reason to draftify or merge; it's mostly a list of her appearances and those can be recreated easily enough if she ever gets enough good coverage for an article here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion, WP:NACTOR is indeed made out—the subject has had several recurring roles in notable TV programs. I do not subscribe to the belief that only starring roles are significant for the purposes of NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's great, but that is a significantly minority viewpoint on the question. The fact is, sometimes even more than one starring role is not enough to get some subjects past WP:BASIC... But the subject in question meets neither that or WP:NACTOR. And as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia is not a platform to list every long-career journeyman television, movie and stage actor that has ever worked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minority viewpoint or not, I believe WP:NACTOR is met, and I stand by my vote, IJBall. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion. We cannot allow to stand articles created by processes of paying someone to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matter how "significant" any role is or isn't, NACTOR is not passed just by stating that roles were had, or even by sourcing the having of roles to the shows' own self-published promotional materials or press releases — it is passed only by showing significant and substantial reliable source coverage in real media about her and her performances to demonstrate that the roles were as significant as you claim they were. If all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR was to say the word "significant", then every actor could just throw the word "significant" into their article and no actor would ever actually be non-notable anymore — so, basically, an actor cannot pass NACTOR #1 if he or she does not simultaneously pass WP:GNG. So the only source here that's relevant to whether she passes NACTOR or not is the Globe and Mail article (footnote #4) — but that article isn't about her, and instead just briefly namechecks her existence as a person that the actual subject of the article once @'ed in a Twitter tweet. That's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I feel like there might be a valid redirect target here. Maybe this actress is on their way to some more notable coverage. But the sources here are a press release, and a bare mention of her as the actress behind these characters. It's sufficient to keep her name at those main articles for now. Jontesta (talk) 23:07, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Aymerich Verdaguer[edit]

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

Survived a previous AFD because there were no respondents. The subject does not hold any international chess titles (~~see his FIDE Chess Profile~~ sorry, this is the wrong page, see the correction made by Bruce Leverett below). Champion of a town or small region isn't normally sufficient to be notable as a chess player. The biggest fish in a small pond can be notable, but this pond seems too small. Quale (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:QUORUM no response should have resulted in a soft delete. Oh well. No FIDE title means no notability unless it can be shown that they have contributed to chess in other ways such as a journalist, author, trainer, arbiter etc but I can find no evidence of that.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I think that the above FIDE profile link is incorrect and this is the correct one; but in any case, no obvious source of notability. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks for the correction. Quale (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable chess player. It is articles like this on very non-notable people that are about to put us over 1 million articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblies[edit]

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

Article about a band, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passage of WP:NMUSIC. As written, this literally just states that they and their music exist(ed?), without even trying to claim that they accomplished anything that could even be measured against NMUSIC at all -- and it cites no real sources whatsoever, but instead just lists the French Wikipedia, their own Myspace (snort) and an online music store as "external links". And the article has existed in this form since 2006 without ever seeing any significant improvement, to boot. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist: they need to have genuine notability claims, supported by genuine coverage in real media, and are not exempted from that just because their own self-published social networking presence technically verifies that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could probably qualify as a speedy delete under WP:A7 – they broke up in 2015 without ever seeming to have made any musical impression. The only time they appear to have made headlines is when they came into conflict with the makers of Candy Crush Saga over the band's name [5], [6]. But it doesn't say anything about them or their music. Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Mysapce.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads indeed more like a Myspace page than a Wikipedia one, and zero notability is established on it too.TH1980 (talk) 00:33, 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 keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hifz-ur-Rehman[edit]

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

Unverified claims, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me this article may be worth saving. Found many reliable sources to verify his claims including Business Recorder newspaper and Pakistan Today newspaper. Please allow time so the article can be improved. I am working on it right now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article now has 3 references and 2 external links. As I expected, I had a hard time finding references for a person that had died in 1970. In my view, this article has some historical significance for the obvious reasons...

Hifz-ur-Rehman (died 1970) was a Pakistani archaeologist, historian and linguist.

"Hifz-ur-Rehman donated his life-long collection of nearly 1,500 antiquities to the Lahore Museum, including three Quranic manuscripts of historical significance written by Imam Hussain (grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad), many decrees, Chinese porcelain, rare coins, glass objects, miniatures, ivory objects and specimens of calligraphy and Islamic art objects".

Nearly 40 years after his death, his dedication and service was appreciated and he was awarded by the President of Pakistan in 2011. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to have historical and religious significance. NBajwa1 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — NBajwa1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources added. Mccapra (talk) 04:07, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Bunkeddeko[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article doesn't mention that he's running again... Caro7200 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have re-written the article with new secondary references. I think the notability issue is now adequately addressed. Fsmatovu (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable unelected candidate. Unless you win an election you need way more coverage than this to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in future political party primaries — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just standing as a candidate for one. But candidates are also not handed a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL just because some campaign coverage exists in their local media — every candidate in every district can always show some campaign coverage in their local media, so if that were how it worked then every candidate in every district could always exempt themselves from NPOL, and NPOL itself would become meaningless. So to make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article in advance of winning the election, you actually have to show one of two things: either (a) he was already notable enough for other reasons independent of the candidacy that he would already have qualified for an article on those other grounds anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) his candidacy can be credibly claimed to have much greater national significance than most other people's candidacies, by virtue of having received an unusually large volume of coverage beyond just his local media market (i.e. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those things are in evidence here.
It's not Wikipedia's mandate or role to maintain an article about every single person whose name happens to be present in their local news right now — our job is to look past the current news cycle, and keep articles only about people who have accomplished something significant enough that it passes the ten year test for enduring significance. So obviously, no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder" — but nothing here, either in the substance or the sourcing, constitutes a valid reason for an article about him to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lost in a 2018 Democratic party primary for New York's 9th congressional district. While the subject did come close to defeating the incumbent in 2018, unelected candidates (especially from a primary) do not meet WP:NPOL. Bearcat says it well. --Enos733 (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he manages to win the primary and general elections, then he can get an article. Unelected candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 20:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet WP:NPOL as a primary challanger who lost and has held no other office.
redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, don't delete. Kingofthedead (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for this redirect target is that there are two equally valid redirect targets, the 2020 target and the 2018 target. I think our usual outcome is a preference for deleting the page without a redirect when the subject is a non-winning candidate in multiple elections (unless they reach notability for being a perennial candidate). --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: I think the precedent for that is redirecting to their first race, actually. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is normal for candidates for congress to receive some coverage in their local media, and of course this articles should be deleted. It is most definitely not normal for a candidate to receive coverage in the Ugandan media.[7] This clearly shows that he has been the subject of a special amount of media attention. Since he has been the candidate in two elections now, that means BLP1E is taken care of. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devonian Wombat, it's not abnormal for someone of Ugandan descent to get coverage in Ugandan media. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the deletion arguments are based around the idea that he has only received coverage in local media, coverage in Ugandan media clearly disproves that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion argument is there isn't enough coverage, even when including one Ugandan piece, to meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serron Noel[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Sources that can be found are passing mentions or routine coverage. Can be recreated when/if they meet eventually meet NHOCKEY or otherwise achieve notablity. DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But he meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except he doesn't. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am seeing enough coverage for a GNG keep, with stories specifically about him in: The Athletic, Ottawa Sun, and another in the Ottawa Sun, nhl.com, South Florida Sun Sentinel, durhamregion.com, The Record, plus a Prospect Podcast from The Hockey News. Rlendog (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are not independent (especially the nhl.com one) or are routine coverage for a local getting drafted or a player being drafted to the local team (both of which have been held up in hundreds of afds as being considered routine). The podcast well that is definition of routine as all top draft prospects get draft profiles done on them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We appear to disagree on what is routine. A list of scores and statistics are definitely routine. A simple list of who was drafted and when by whom would also be routine. A biography of the person being drafted is not routine at all, and whether the coverage is a big town or small town paper has no bearing on being routine. Flibirigit (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Flibirigit. The Athletic article is not local, and there are profiles in localities ranging from Ottawa, Canada to Florida, USA. We have sometimes regarded stories specifically about someone getting drafted as routine (although I disagree with that if it is a full blown article about the player) but one of the Florida articles is about the player subsequent from his draft coverage. We have also regarded nhl.com as an acceptable source, and it should be, since if he is in the NHL then he meets NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, player meets WP:GNG which supersedes WP:HOCKEY guidelines. Flibirigit (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he meets the WP:GNG requirements Barrettsprivateers (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Rlendog's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're in a period of sports saturation. I agree Rlendog's sources are significant coverage. But I also agree with those who are saying they're routine. There is not, in my view, coverage to establish notability under GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Thugless[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, insufficient independent coverage in reliable sources. Provided sources largely do not appear reliable ([8], [9], [10]) or are Q&A interviews ([11], [12]). Online I was able to find reprints of some of these same references, but nothing that would make a stronger contribution to establishing notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete. Article has been created entirely from primary sources which is against the policy. These references are directly taken from the subject matter: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3] and ^[4]. Other references completely lack WP:GNG. Lordofthesky (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC) per: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Poojajainhr, of which this is one.Djflem (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Lordofthesky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - The user has made 7 edits to this point, six of them to 4 AFDs. - BilCat (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the reliable sources I found were regional ones--not that I think that's as terrible as some editors do--but they've had almost a decade to garner national coverage. Caro7200 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears the sources that directly reference subjective sources are being used for dates. Could use a clean up but there are a bunch of sources. ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanttoedit1942 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC) — Wanttoedit1942 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wanttoedit1942, you seem to have only linked one source there. Also, per that site's FAQ page, they're a pay to play review outlet, which makes them unreliable. I would also consider it a further strike against notability, because a band that meets notability guidelines wouldn't have any reason to solicit paid reviews. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, sorry I'm new on here. I work for a college radio station. I saw the discussion on the top of this page so joined to chime in. Per your note on elevator, it says they take paid sponsorships. that seems to be true of almost every outlet. That note on the FAW also says that those posts will be marked sponsored. including a few more sources. Was thinking about cleaning up this page if it is not deleted. I like the band and they have a weird story. Some links from a quick search: the Aquaraian^[6], Voyage LA ^[7], event listing for concert with Wyclef Jean in LA weekly ^[8]
~~The The Aquarian doesn't list any editorial information on their website and is therefore likely unreliable~~, the VoyageLA piece is a Q&A interview and thus not independent coverage, and the LAWeekly spot is an ad for a concert. Regarding the claim that most places take paid sponsorships, in my experience that isn't the case. Moreover, the issue isn't whether the publication ever does promotional coverage, but whether this article in particular is paid coverage. A paid album review is worthless for assessing notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Aquarian might be reliable, found this here, its been a magazine/webzine for fifty years, with several names as per The Aquarian Weekly. It was discussed at WP:RSN in section 34 of this page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, striking that part of my prior comment. Not sure that's enough on its own to push this over to notability, however. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i'm neutral at present, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per

Makin, Bob (June 28, 2018). "Makin Waves Scene Report with Evangelia, Cook Thugless and "13 Reasons Why"". The Aquarian. Retrieved May 1, 2020.

Local Stories (January 8, 2019). "Meet Keith Lalley and Jean Louis Droulers of Cook Thugless". Voyage LA Magazine. Retrieved May 1, 2020.

Makin, Bob (January 10, 2019). "Makin Waves Record of the Week: Cook Thugless' "Luxe"". The Aquarian. Retrieved May 1, 2020.

Olivier, Bobby (January 23, 2019). "31 New Jersey bands you need to hear in 2019". NJ Advance Media for nj.com. Retrieved May 1, 2020.

Olivier, Bobby (January 15, 2020). "31 New Jersey bands you need to hear in 2020". NJ Advance Media for nj.com. Retrieved May 1, 2020.

Djflem (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Credible reliable and verifiable sources about the subject have been identified to demonstrate the notability of the article's subject. Alansohn (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Lock Jaw Official Video". Youtube. Retrieved 7 November 2019.
^ "Cook Thugless Band Camp Page". Band Camp. Retrieved 6 November 2019.
^ Cook Thugless - lost in LA (Official Music Video), retrieved 2019-12-13
^ Cook Thugless - lost in LA (Official Music Video), retrieved 2019-12-13
^ https://www.elevatormag.com/cook-thugless-mosh-pit
^ https://www.theaquarian.com/2019/01/10/makin-waves-record-of-the-week-cook-thugless-luxe/
^ http://voyagela.com/interview/meet-keith-lalley-and-jean-louis-droulers-of-cook-thugless/
^ https://www.laweekly.com/events/wyclef-jean-with-cook-thugless/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- all reliable sources that have been provided are local (regional at best) and fail to establish the national or international notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified. Regional and local sources are acceptable for WP:GNG except in companies and organisation articles where local sources are not counted for notability but regional sources are, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 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 no consensus. Can't be soft deleted as it was previously PROD'd and de-PROD'd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badshah Begum (web series)[edit]

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

No indication of notability and per WP:NYF there shouldn't be an article on films/TV shows until they have started filming. Gotitbro (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt at a relist. Lack of votes after another week should probably be closed as no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus that any of this needs merging. Complete consensus this is not a notable company. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nokian Capacitors[edit]

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

I’m unsure that this company meets WP:NCORP. It survived AfD in 2006 but hasn’t really developed much since then. The company merged in 2008 and the sources suggested on the talk page that got it through AfD in 2006 don’t look very substantial to me. Searching of course produces lots of hits for irrelevant Nokia-related items. Overall it looks pretty borderline to me. Mccapra (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge to GE Renewable Energy. According to the Finnish Wikipedia article, this company is now part of General Electric's Grid Solutions [13] which itself is a GE Renewable Energy business according to their website. The main article sadly does not mention Grid Solutions. --Pudeo (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a merge would be good but the challenge is the business has been bought and sold so many times. I can’t see how you’d get it into GE Renewable Energy. However I could merge it into the ‘Other operations’ of Areva if that seems acceptable? Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, GE Renewable Energy has aquired all assets of this Finnish company. So it would probably warrant one passage in the GE Renewable Energy article if it had a subsection for Grid Solutions, like it has for Wind and Hydro. Their website lists all their divisions. --Pudeo (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is Nokia Capacitors was bought by Areca, which was then bought by Alstom, parts of which were later bought by GE. By this time the capacitors business had ‘disappeared’ I think. The first entity it went into (was acquired by) was Areva. If I merge it into there it then just becomes part of the onward flow of acquisitions.

Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't believe it passes WP:NCORP. Mbdfar (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of NCORP. If there isn't a substantial amount of sourcing, it shouldn't be merged to Areva. IMO it would constitute undue weight, since Areva is a massive multi-national that owns or has owned numerous companies, and there's no indication that Nokian Capacitors is any more important than any other subsidiary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 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 redirect to Eighth Doctor#Novels. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ssard[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Not finding third-party coverage of the character. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eighth Doctor#Novels, this character fails GNG, as the only source given is just a passing mention, but he is mentioned with a bit of description at the target so redirecting is the best choice. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Devonian Wombat. No appropriate sources. May have some value as a search term. Jontesta (talk) 23:29, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine and the X-Men (toyline)[edit]

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

Not finding sources for this article, (though I admit that it's complicated by the limits of google searching extremely common terms). Recommend merging into Wolverine and the X-Men. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about creating this page. I'm fine with whatever happens to it (keeping, deleting, merging, etc.). Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not independently notable. Not even a likely search term. If someone finds independent reliable sources, might be worth adding a few sentences to the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:42, 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 redirect to List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliates#Popa Wu. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visions of the 10th Chamber Part II[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM - compilation album Rogermx (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, could not find any RS. Caro7200 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Popa Wu~~ List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliates#Popa Wu: The compilation album was mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I agree with redirect. Thank you, Superastig for the suggestion. Rogermx (talk) 13:11, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Committee to Ratify the Massachusetts State Equal Rights Amendment[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. No SIGCOV, not notable on its own merits. Rogermx (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NORG and WP:ADVOCACY. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:21, 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. Sandstein 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Wei Haur[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, searched for secondary sources in Chinese and English but found none. Fails WP:PROF, WP:BIO. Also delete per WP:NOTCV Dps04 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a bloated CV without RS. --Kbabej (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Mestokosho[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and activist, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing our inclusion standards for writers or activists. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, but need to show some evidence of distinctions (e.g. notable awards) and/or enough media coverage about them to clear WP:GNG — however, the only notability claim even being attempted here is that she and her work exist, and three of the four footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all. Even the one footnote that is to a real media outlet just goes "name of newspaper, date" without actually providing the title of the specific article being cited, so it's impossible to determine whether that source is about her or just glancingly namechecks her existence — and even if it is about her strongly enough to count for something, it still takes a lot more than just one such source to get a person in the door. And even on a Google search, I'm finding a lot of sources that mention her, but not a lot of sources that are about her for the purposes of getting her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fr.wiki article provides more sources but they equally don’t really support notability. The article in Ouest-France is here and there is also this article but unless someone can find something else it doesn’t look like a strong case. Mccapra (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good finds, thank you! Of note: this is not the same Ouest-France article as the one which is referenced in the article. The dates don't match, and they are not on the same subject. Mottezen (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I admit this was a pretty sloppy translation of the (apparently very old) French article of the same name. However, I included enough sources on her in the article that it now definitely meets WP:GNG. Take a look at this documentary exclusively on her, The following bibliographies [14] [15] [16] [17], this thing on France Culture, and the article about her work being taught in Sweden Mccapra found. Mottezen (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not relevant here but whenever you translate from another wiki you need to add the translation template in the talk page. I’ve added it just now. Mccapra (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, none of those links actually have anything whatsoever to do with whether she gets over GNG or not. People do not get over GNG on the basis of having "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of companies or organizations they've been directly affiliated with (e.g. writers do not get over GNG by having "our writers" profiles on the websites of their own publishers), or directory entries, or audio clips of them reading their own work in the first person. To count toward getting her over GNG, a source has to represent journalism or analysis about her and her work, written or spoken in the third person by somebody other than herself, in newspapers, magazines, literary journals or books that she is not affiliated with. And even the Ouest-France piece turns out to be a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which means it also isn't a GNG-building source either (it would be acceptable for straight verification of facts if the article had already gotten over GNG on stronger sources, but does not help to get her over GNG in the first place.) Lainx's academic source is the only genuinely useful one that's actually been shown so far, and even then GNG still requires more than that. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one: [18], a press article uniquely about her, and this one: [19] ? Surely those count as "journalism or analysis about her and her work".Mottezen (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added another reference and there seems to be quite some media coverage but mainly in French. She was also quoted by Nobel prize winner J. M. G. Le Clézio in a speech on universal literature. Her work was also discussed in the Oxford Handbook of Indigenous American Literature and the suject of an academic article (http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A989904&dswid=-9338) Lainx (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, since nomination the article has been considerably improved with sources that cover Mestokosho and/or her works. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 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 keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tianshannet[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article curation . review. IMO fails wp:notability. Zero secondary sources discussing the topic. Of the two sources, one is a primary source / self-announcement of the website, the other is a 13 year old announcement by BBC that this website would be carrying some of their programming. I came up with nothing better in a web search. Creator is blocked. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official government news agency for the region that is cited throughout Wikipedia [20]. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Check out Baidu Baike's page on this: [21]. What's more likely: you're deleting the page for an important resource on a little understood region of the world, or that this is a legitimate deletion of an unimportant topic? Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that this article is a stub, but that its stubbiness does by no means imply that the topic is unimportant. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) ::@Geographyinitiative: First, I'm not deleting it, I nominated it for review by others. It's not that it's just a stub; there's nothing in the article except a 19 year old self-annuncement of existence of the website, and a 13 year old announcement that the site would carry some BBC material. There's not even a link to the website that the article is about. You wrote more at the AFD than in the article :-) And no work on the article since April 18th. Why don't you just add at least a few sentences to the article along the lines of what you wrote here? If the coverage/sources show some indication of what you wrote in the AFD it probably should be kept and then I'd be happy to withdraw.

I added comments from Reuters and AP concerning Tianshannet- if you need more proof of notability, there's more out there. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The official word from the Cyberspace Administration of China is that it's the official news website for Xinjiang (see page) Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative:If sourc-able, why don't you put that in the article? It says a lot. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a lot of direct commentary on Tianshannet by other sources other than that it is the official news outlet of the regional government. Notable stub for now. As time goes on, I will organically add more material to the page, but to force a glut of new material now is too crude. A thing can be extremely notable yet be little known or understood. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:notability relates to coverage of the topic which can be different that the common meaning of notability. But either way, you've bolstered it quite a bit in the last couple hours, including current sourcing that it is as described. I'll withdraw the nomination. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn/Keep Per above and new work and sourcing. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Thanks for your help! I probably wouldn't have added more information without this process. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: Cool. Thanks for creating / building this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:52, 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 Draftify. Per consensus; article to be incubated in draftspace. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lasses (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Provided sources appear to be either primary or less-than-reliable; Irish Music Magazine is maybe reliable [22] but doesn't publish any editorial information on their website. I didn't have much luck finding anything else about them online, despite having scrolled through their facebook page for quite some time to try to find mentions of coverage in reputable music publications. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this, a number of references have been added now, from music magazines across Europe (UK [23][24][25], Netherlands [26][27], Belgium [28], Germany [29], Italy [30]). Not sure if these are reputable enough, however - all relatively small folk music magazines. _signed,Lfsts ^talk 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among those sources, most unfortunately don't look reliable. Country.de's coverage may actually be ok. Popmagazineheaven may be reliable, but this article is a promo for an upcoming concert so it's not the greatest form of coverage (if the same publication has album reviews, I'd be more enthusiastic about those). And there's the IrishMusicMagazine article again that I mentioned in the opening statement. I think we're closer to demonstrating notability, but I'm not confident that we've reached it yet. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to afford an opportunity to find and add solid sources. BD2412 T 03:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft as some reliable sources have been added to the article but more would be better so improvement in draftspace is a valid option, imvv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 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 redirect to To the Stars (company). Opinion is split between merge and delete, and redirect is my usual compromise. Editors can still merge any worthwhile content to any other article. Sandstein 14:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Elizondo[edit]

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

This WP:FRINGEBLP has been causing problems as UFO enthusiasts keep inserting a lot of content not directly about Elizondo but instead about the UFO sightings he is most excited about. I think that he is not independently notable per WP:BIO, certainly not WP:NACADEMIC. Off-handed mention or quotes in WP:SENSATIONal news articles do not justification for an article make. jps (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this user has been edit warring on that page recently despite me and another user telling him to stop [31]. Proposing the page for deletion is just an escalation WP:BATTLEFIELD. Elizondo is clearly notable as the previous director of AATIP and the original source for the videos of the USS Nimitz UFO incident and the USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents that have been recently officially declassified and released by the DoD (mostly due to the controversy surrounding Elizondo's release. He has been included in most stories by the NYT, Washington post etc. etc. with direct interviews and profiles. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable things and events associated with people do not automatically confer notability on the person. jps (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is one of the main reasons the world knows about those things and events. He has been at the center of debates by reputable sources regarding his role in all of those things and events. [32][33][34] (I could honestly go on for ages here). And please stop removing content and edit warring on that page? [35] -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of that matters if we don't have sources which speak to his notability so we can source his biography. We don't even know how old the person is. jps (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy close There has been a edit war going on with this subject. No need to delete a page because of a edit war.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet. See this. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Independently of any edit war that may have happened/be happening, there are legitimate "only known for one thing" and "the thing is more noteworthy than the person" concerns here, combined with an apparent lack of reliable biographical material, and so this looks like an article for which a good and forthright AfD debate would be legitimate. Actually, I don't see any fundamental reason why an edit war should rule out holding an AfD — it might bring heightened passions to one, but if the topic has fans, then those passions arrive anyway. So, I don't see a reason for a speedy close. XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: If others second this AfD (and this is not just a user turning wiki into a WP:BATTLEGROUND I will retract my speedy close vote and commute it to a simple Keep. Although I would invite you to familiarise yourself with the topic a little bit before stating that he is "only known for one thing". Although he is only known for his involvement with Ufology (not much is known about his intelligence days), he is highly significant within that area, has been involved with many different topics (AATIP, Video disclosures of Nimitz and Roosevelt incidents, To the stars, congressional hearings, etc.), is basically the "host" of the Unidentified History channel series, and has been personally profiled by several reliable sources. I understand some people don't "like" what Elizondo does and the subject overall. But a quick Google search is sufficient to see he is clearly notable. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said that there were legitimate concerns, of the sort that a full AfD is the way to examine. (And "being involved with many different topics" is not the same thing as having reliable sources documenting his involvement and demonstrating that he played a significant rather than an incidental role.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With To the Stars. If Elizondo has any encyclopedic notability (and along those lines I refer readers to the 2019 article about him in The Intercept, which - for some reason - has escaped mention on the Elizondo page), it seems to be through his association and activities with To the Stars. I understand the legitimacy of the WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED concerns noted above by XOR'easter, but a merge seems to me appropriate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this one? [36]? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about it specifically should we cover in the article? I'll gladly add it. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With To the Stars (company). This is a UFOlogist conspiracy masquerading as a biography. If there is an independently notable topic, Elizondo is not it. Guy (help!) 15:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "UFOlogist conspiracy"? All of the information in the article has been confirmed by the US Government. AATIP, Elizondo's Role, the videos he leaked. All of it has official confirmation. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to To the Stars (company) on the basis of WP:BLP1E as evidenced by a notable absence of coverage outside of mentions in news media regarding a recent UFO flap. A WP:BLP is expected to be more than a WP:COATRACK containing quotes from the subject claiming mysterious government opposition to UFO research and warning of potential aerial threats. The lack of independent analysis or critique for these claims, as well as zero common biographical detail such as education, background, etc. demonstrates that a standalone bio is WP:TOOSOON for this particular subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No biographical information anywhere. Obviously this is not about the person, but the UFO reporting. The lede which should sum up the entire article clearly shows that this is a nothing burger. Maybe he loves his mom and never kicks his puppy, but we can't have biographies like this. Mention him on the Stars page but until he is Wikipedia notable on his own, moveon.org. Sgerbic (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment several people are proposing to merge this with To the Stars (company). This is a significant point against WP:BLP1E as Elizondo is mainly notable for his association with Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program of which he was the director and original disclosure source. To the Stars is just the company he is consulting for at the moment. Should it be merged with both? And how would that merge practically work? If we should merge this anywhere it would be within AATIP where it would be more relevant and where coverage would make more sense.

Sources:

Luis Elizondo, who led the Pentagon effort to investigate U.F.O.s until October. NY Times
A former Pentagon official who led a recently revealed government program to research potential UFOs CNN
Luis Elizondo, who quit as head of the Advanced Threat Identification Programme (AATIP) two months ago, warned nations now “had to be conscious” of the potential threat posed by UFOs. The Independent
AATIP is introduced and then...Luis Elizondo headed it up and he said he and his colleague continued to work out of a Pentagon office... BBC radio interview
It’s the story that launched Luis Elizondo into the public eye, the article that “shocked the world,” the narrator of “Unidentified” declares, before continuing, “A clandestine U.S. government program had been investigating UFOs. For eight years, the secret program was run by this man, Lue Elizondo.” the Intercept
Special Agent In-Charge, Luis Elizondo, who confirmed the existence of the hidden government program, the controversial story was the focus of worldwide attention. Previously run by Elizondo, AATIP was created to research and investigate Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) Unidentified: History Channel
Luiz Elizondo, the former military intelligence officer who ran the real-life X-Files programme telegraph
According to a Pentagon official, the AATIP program was ended “in the 2012 time frame,” but it has recently attracted attention because of the resignation in early October of Luis Elizondo, the career intelligence officer who ran the initiative. Politico

I could go on. It should be noted that while most mention his affiliation to To the stars AFTER AATIP. Not all of them do. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Principle of least astonishment. He is "Director of Global Security and Special Programs at To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science". The merge should go to To the Stars (company), rather than an article about somewhere he was a few years ago. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does that principle mean here? A title in a much less notable company takes precedence over his official work in a highly notable government program? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. Per WP:TOOSOON. Lots of military people ran government programs both secret and public. Has he made it into any biographical dictionaries or history books or won any well-known honors or awards for his government UFO work per WP:ANYBIO (see Note 8)? As an example, look at the more impressive article for psychic-supporting Major General Albert Stubblebine, a name many here will immediately recognize. I support UFO research, just want to make that clear. My vote should not be considered anti-UFO and I would support an article on Elizondo in the future if he passes the test of time. 5Q5|^✉ 16:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@5Q5: Doesn't WP:ANYBIO support keeping this page? The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Note 8 says that "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. is needed (not just "history books"). Isn't this exactly that case (see some of the sources cited above)? Also: if your vote is merge please clarify where we should merge this (see discussion above). Thanks.-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5Q5 responds: The "significant press coverage" in Note 8 of WP:ANYBIO refers to politicians. I concur that Elizondo has made a "widely recognized contribution" to the field of UFOlogy, but it is just a question of whether it is short term or long term. The latter can be proven by providing multiple sources as time goes on for the next article creation for him, especially books or mainstream science articles of a historical nature that mention his contribution and how he changed the field. Or, he could write or co-write a book that becomes a best-seller. Until then, a section in To the Stars (company) would be appropriate in my opinion until such time that the needed quality sources can be collected for a stand-alone article. History writing comes after news stories. We are still in or just coming out of the news phase of Elizondo's contribution to the field of UFOlogy. Time will tell if he stays famous or fades away. 5Q5|^✉ 14:48, 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. Sandstein 14:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Sokół[edit]

Discussion[edit]

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

this is PR spam, chock full of black hat SEO "news" sources designed to make clients seem more notable than they actually are. Praxidicae (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this artist is well known, she published music albums, she is a performer and so on. I am not sure, where is the problem, especially as there are references and real awards and music :)? Klarqa (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klarqa well for starters, half of your sources are fake. Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I remeber, checking those articles - are you saying, there are empty links now? I can assure you, that this person is known also abroad in certain groups of fans, she has concerts all over the world and so on :) I have her albums at home Klarqa (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have to go back to work now, so please - let me know what we can do here, because it took a lot of work to compose this article, gather photos with permissions and so on :) I checked links and I remember these articles- they are OK. Klarqa (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klarqa no they're not dead links, they're blatant fake news sites run by black hat SEO firms that publish material to imitate real journalists and news sites to make their clients look important. Sites like this are nothing short of SEO trash. Praxidicae (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I just believed they are OK, because I can tell the information inside are true. There are more sources in Polish language, but I decided that maybe it would be more convenient to use English language sources on enwiki. If I can use for now Polish references I can add them (as a long time editor I know, that when it`s problem with sources in English, you can use another language, if topic/person is still suitable for enclopeadia, and this particular person is. Links in Polish (some of them): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. You can check those via this analitic tool. Thanks! Klarqa (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klarqa the Polish sources are not good either. this is an interview and doesn't appear to be an rs anyway, this is basically imdb, [wp.pl/?s=https%3A%2F%2Fkobieta.wp.pl%2Fpiosenkarka-pati-sokol-nagle-zniknela-dzis-opowiada-o-tym-jak-zmienilo-sie-jej-zycie-6458420582282881a&src01=f1e45 this is basically the same as the first one], this says nothing about her, this is far from coverage, this is a press release/announcement and I could continue but I hope you get the point. Praxidicae (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, so what can we do, because compAring to other biographic articles on enwiki, this person belongs HERE as the published known artist. of course for this kind of artistic activity sources are these kind very often (imbd, album release information etc.), especially when we speak about contemporary artists. I found additional ref.- interview with her and maybe we can remove those 'wrong' references and work on better. I mean- now me and you are discussing and I understand that you don`t know this artist, but plenty peple do and for no-Polish speaking persons this article is a good thing. I could point towards many articles about low-class actors/acresses and so on - they did 1-2 things and have article on Wikipedia ;) But I understand, that you are taking care of good sources so thank you for your work on making Wikipedia better! I have work to do whole day, so I will be back at my evenning (CET). Klarqa (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here is an analysis of the sources. Google has nothing better.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://riyasokol.com/know/	her website	only for primary info		✘ No
https://www.pmlngroup.com/conversation-with-multi-talented-riya-sokol/	interview	black hat seo interview site spam (ie. pay for interview publication		✘ No
https://muziquemagazine.com/riya-sokol-talks-about-love-for-her-craft-sense-of-style-and-more/	same as above	same as above		✘ No
http://tantra-festival.com/riya-2/	festival listing	~ for basic primary info only		✘ No
https://dorothysurrenders.blogspot.com/2012/04/womans-work.html		random blogs aren't reliable		✘ No
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/polish-mums-who-gifted-kate-10815507		see WP:RSP	not even about her	✘ No
http://www.globalmusicawards.com/Winners-May-2019.html	award listing		not even a notable award	✘ No
https://muziquemagazine.com/riya-sokol-talks-about-love-for-her-craft-sense-of-style-and-more/		see #3		✘ No
https://awakenaslove.com/sweden-training/	listsing			✘ No
https://london-post.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-riya-sokol-and-her-new-album/	London-post.co.uk is a black hat SEO site that publishes fake articles designed to look like legitimate media outlets to inflate the importance of peoples clients	see above		✘ No
https://washingtondc.eventful.com/events/awaken-love-taster-james-stevenson-riya-sokol-/E0-001-117816104-0	event listing	n		✘ No
https://london-post.co.uk/everything-you-need-to-know-about-riya-sokol-and-her-new-album/	see #10			✘ No
https://www.filmweb.pl/person/Pati+Sok%C3%B3%C5%82-1911329	just the polish imdb			✘ No
http://megazin.megatotal.pl/pierwsze-krysztalowe-kamer-tony-rozdane/				✘ No
https://wownow.com/coronavirus-prevention/			all this is is a webpage with a bunch of random YT videos, utterly meaningless	✘ No
http://mindgil.com/client/board/view.asp?fcd=&nNewsNumb=20200368941&nCate=C02&nCateM=M1001	this basically a self submitted fan blog	i have sincere doubts about the reliability of a website that calls itself a legitimate news site but is just one guys gmail account		✘ No
https://www.insider.com/jaime-king-backlash-video-thanking-the-coronavirus-2020-3	not about the subject	but not about the subject	it's about Jamie King with a single mention of the subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Praxidicae (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am actually surprised this article is not PRODded.--Darwinek (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very good indepth analysis of the issue by the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = In addition to noms excellent source analysis, there looks to be nothing in the ether that is even remotely promising. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: To all above voting for Delete - please, read my arguments and proposals in discussion. I would like to remind, that discussion on deletion should bring us to consensus, no to to voting Klarqa (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stay - because person is encyclopaedic and verifable via her activity like published albums etc. As we can see, her bio is connected to importatnt blue liknks. NOTE: Stay with template about better citation needed. Klarqa (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stay - 1) notability: yes, 2) wiki in other languages - yes, as a matter of fact this article is almost (if not totally, except discography section) nothing but a translation from its Polish version, 3) links: indeed for improvement, see: Polish version - it has more trustable sources. This however brings back the question whether the subject of this article (Pati/Riya Sokół) is rather known in PL or also internationally. I am however an inclusive Wikipedian and - as we are depict all knowledge of humanity, i believe we should not limit content to the relevant language only - thus: I firmly vote Stay (with improved references, so: maybe we should just mark it as article that needs improvements instead of deleting it?). Lantuszka (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it exists on PL wiki is irrelevant as each project has different inclusion criteria. The article in Polish is equally as bad as this one and lacks in the sources required for BLPs. The sources are nothing more than her press team puffing up her resume. There are almost no legitimate sources about her. Praxidicae (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per analysis done by Praxidicae above. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:27, 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 is GNG is met Fenix down (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xavi Simons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

still fails WP:NFOOTY, the only "coverage" is WP:BLP1E about how many followers he has, which is unimpressive and lacking in depth, it's the equivalent of gossip. Praxidicae (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would argue, following Simons' move to Paris Saint Germain, his media coverage expanded, similar to that of Luqman Hakim Shamsudin, who was also subject to an AfD, of which the result was keep. There have been numerous articles written about the player, and he is frequently mentioned in articles about the top prospects in European football (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). I am aware that this alone may not be enough to meet WP:GNG, but I believe the sources I have provided, as well as the fact that there are 17 pages of results on Google news about Simons, is enough to meet WP:GNG.

Another player with stark similarities to Simons is Kays Ruiz-Atil, whose page is yet to be disputed. Also, players such as Sonny Pike and Youssoufa Moukoko, who are notable mostly for being a highly rated youth prospects at Ajax and Borussia Dortmund respectively, have not had their pages disputed. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kays Ruiz-Atil is not disputed because of several controversies and transfers: The transfers to Barca and PSG are notable enough for Kays Ruiz-Atil, as are the controversies with Football Leaks. So far there is neither enough football or enough drama to make Simons notable. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Subject seems to meet WP:GNG at this point, even though he's young the coverage is beyond that of a normal youth athlete and I'm seeing sigcov in multiple different langauges. If he fails to make the grade we can revisit which is the only reason why I'm a weak keep but I don't think it's WP:TOOSOON and it's likely he'll be remembered as a bust based on the level of coverage if he fails to make the grade. SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Big clubs sign hot prospects all the time, many of whom never amount to anything. This is likely going to be another case of that - if he ends up going professional and makes a first-team appearance, then he will he notable enough for an article. Right now, he’s just another nothing kid. – Pee Jay 14:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly persuaded by the fact he's already being paid over €500,000 by PSG. This is an abnormal level of coverage for a nothing kid. [37] [38] [39] [40] SportingFlyer T·C 14:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could be another John Bostock! Govvy (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another (currently) highly tipped youth prospect who has received some media attention because of a big money transfer. Happens all the time and does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 15:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Very confused as to how you've come to this conclusion, having stood by the decision to keep Luqman Hakim Shamsudin up, justifying it by citing the case of Sonny Pike. I also don't see a difference between this and the page creations for Karamoko Dembele (page was created before his Celtic debut) and Youssoufa Moukoko, two players who were only notable at the time of their page creation for the fact that they are highly rated youth prospects. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage about this player? And by that I mean more than "look at this prospect who has just signed for a big club, here's 10 facts about him". Giant Snowman 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage for Pike? It can't be one rule for some, another rule for others. Even if Simons fails to make his professional debut, he'll fall under the same category as Pike of being a highly touted youth prospect who never made it at pro level. And that's besides the point, Simons already meets WP:GNG from the amount of news hits, surely. Not to mention I have only included English sources, and not French, Dutch or Spanish ones. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another good example is Louie Barry, who is only notable for a “big money move” to Aston Villa. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Sonny Pike is non-notable then it shows just how little you know about football. Also please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 16:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to draftify Shamsudin back in September and considering it doesn't look like he's training in Europe anymore may have been correct in that assessment. The level of coverage for Simons is currently far beyond Shamsudin, and the coverage is beyond mere transfer coverage. Yes yes OSE but it's not a bad point of comparison. Two sigcov articles not contemporaneous with the transfer: [41] [42] SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my lack of knowledge on a player who was reaching his prime as I was born, and went on to play for the great sides of Waltham Forest and Dryburgh Saints. Truly lived up to his comparisons to Maradona and Best. Now if you want to stop resorting to insulting my football knowledge, we can discuss the article at hand. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CNN article posted above, enough to push him over the GNG line. Giant Snowman 11:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, agree with nom with WP:NFOOTY, and the references seem all pretty new, probably WP:TOOSOON, so I lean towards delete and if needed the text can stay in draft until the subject meets notability test. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY and WP:TOOSOON. I'd also vote to delete on Louie Barry, Luqman Hakim Shamsudin, Ilaix Moriba, Kays Ruiz-Atil, and maybe even Youssoufa Moukoko for having pages before their pro debuts.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Changing my mind, to Keep in light of other AfDs for players in similar situations.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG based on a simple Google search even though it doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSkyLord (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna provide those sources? Praxidicae (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are already 13 sources in this AfD alone with significant coverage, from multiple points in time, in different languages. That would be a good place to start. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very clearly passes GNG, with all the sources quoted above, plus relevant sources about the player are really not hard to find. I don't think it's our role here in the encyclopedia to judge the content of the sources: if they are quality reliable sources as described in WP:GNG, revolving around the subject of the article, then the article must not be deleted. --Coco (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GS. --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY pretty badly. Yes, Simons is getting 1 million euros, but the sources are largely centered around the transfer and mere speculation. Having 2.4 million followers in IG hardly confers notability. His development at a young age hardly means anything. Big clubs have signed many prospects from a young age, many of which gradually get forgotten. Give it a year and he should have an article; for now, it's still WP:TOOSOON. Also compare WP:BLP1E, hardly any coverage of real football plays. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep -- see below. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm sorry but anyone that follows football even as a casual fan, knows who Xavi Simons is. The questioning of his legitimacy and then several commenters here saying lets see how he does before we keep this page as he is probably just "hype" is incredibly disrespectful. Imagine playing for FC Barcelona and Paris St. Germain and having some armchair analysts question your level of football skill... This question of deletion seems more personal based then on actual facts. There is more than enough media coverage on Xavi Simons around the world to keep him on wiki. To not have Xavi on wiki but keep other players barely heard of like Luqman Hakim Shamsudin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luqman_Hakim_Shamsudin - is craziness. Futbol10p (talk) 8:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Xavi Simons is not even playing in the reserves team of PSG (PSG II): he is just playing in the u19 academies, which is different from PSG II. PSG II is on the league system of France, while PSG U19 is in a totally different system (youth league). Luqman Hakim Shamsudin is considered notable because he is playing at Selangor FA II, which is at least in the 2nd tier of Malaysian football. Xavi Simons haven't even debuted for PSG II. See WP:WAX. At this point, coverage is centered on the transfer incident, and records of his actual footballing ability out of the youth team level are few and far between. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 01:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's not notable because of where he plays, he's notable because of the tremendous (compared to other prospects) amount of multilingual coverage that's been dedicated to him outside of mere transfers. SportingFlyer T·C 03:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eumat114: Actually, there is no concrete evidence that Shamsudin has signed officially for Selangor. He could just be training with them, and he certainly hasn’t played any games for Selangor II. Even if he was playing for Selangor II, the Malay Premier League is not professional and he still fails WP:NFOOTY. Simons also fails, but he meets WP:GNG. The coverage for Shamsudin consists of his performances for the youth teams of Malaysia and for his (collapsed) transfer to Kortijk. Please explain how he is more notable than Simons. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidlofgren1996, as the top scorer of a competition Hakim (not Shamsudim, see that article) naturally received a bit more coverage, even if the competition was youth-level; the top scorer is an award that should demonstrate notability. Have Xavi Simons won any individual awards? If yes, I'm happy to keep. Right now, it's close, but just a bit off. In fact, draftify might be a better option as he should be notable in 6 months. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four youth Ballon d’Or awards probably trump an under-16 Asian youth tournament joint top scorer award. Source Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidlofgren1996, Okay thanks. Here's a trout: {{trout}} It should have been brought out 5 days ago (or I must have missed something) -- Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 08:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, the CNN profile is significant independent coverage. P-K3 (talk) 01:47, 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 redirect to JoJo discography. Sandstein 14:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LoveJo2[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NM, this doesn't have any coverage beyond its existance. The tracklist could easily be included on the discography. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 11:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge - Bizarre that so many RS would write about it being released, but decline to review it... Caro7200 (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200: it's the nature of the music journalism business these days... record companies send advance press releases to interns on news desks, who regurgitate them and provide publicity for the new release, but unlike long-form albums, singles and EPs don't usually get reviewed upon release, not like in the days of print magazines. This is why so many song articles on Wikipedia these days are nothing more than announcements of the release, and then chart positions if applicable – even if the sources are reliable ones, they're just publicity announcements. Richard3120 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: ha, true, read Spin for decades, but never visit its site... Caro7200 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JoJo discography due to a lack of coverage. I agree with Richard3120's thoughts, but I would also not be surprised if page views are taken into consideration (i.e. publications only doing reviews on artists that attract a certain amount of page views to justify paying a writer). That's my just my two cents though. I think a redirect would be the better option here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 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. Sandstein 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baldscape[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd in 2016 with a rationale pointing out it was a neologism. DePROD'd with the rationale that it likely met GNG.

I would dispute this. In particular, WP:N demands that topics have gained attention across a period of time, ie, not merely for one weekend before dropping off into obscurity. Every single source in this article is from approximately May 13th, 2016, with no sources dating before or after found on a search, which tells us that this concept, while amusing as news site filler, is not actually encyclopedically notable. This is the definition of a concept that badly fails the ten year test - it would hardly pass a hypothetical ten day test. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a flash-in-the-pan neologism. Like the nom, I was unable to find any sources that weren't from May 2016. I can't think of anywhere to merge this either. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:16, 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 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert André[edit]

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

Just an average academic and faculty member at the University of Waterloo. No claim of notability on the article, and no indication his works made a significant impact in the academia. A search on the person also reveals little coverage outside of university websites. Fails WP:PROF, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Dps04 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For anyone else having trouble finding his publications, in this sort of area MathSciNet provides comprehensive coverage. It lists only three publications by him, "On the supremum of a family of singular compactifications", "When does the family of singular compactifications form a complete lattice?", and "Compactifying a convergence space with functions". Google scholar shows zero citations for any of them. (There is also a brief biography of Adolphe Quetelet written in French by someone with a similar name that they don't identify as being the same person.) Mathematics is a low-citation subject but we can't base an article on nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few publications, and no other indication of WP:NPROF or other notability. FWIW, it looks from the initial revision like the article was created by his 1st year students as some kind of joke or tribute.[43] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of passing WP:PROF or anything else. XOR'easter (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a very clear failure of academic notability guidelines. Not every holder of a professorship is notable, and nothing more stringent than that would make this guy notable. Of course I can't resist pointing out that if this was like our football criteria everyone who had ever been the teacher of record for a sourse at a regionally acredited university in the US would be considered notable, and we would try to find an equallybroad criteria for academics in every country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely any publications and doesn't pass WP:PROF. There are tens of thousands of professors just like the subject, and not all merit articles (and certainly don't pass GNG). --Kbabej (talk) 17:13, 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 and redirect to Gunpowder empires. Ultimately this seems to be as much about Gunpowder empires as it is this article. There is support that needed content is missing at Gunpowder empires, but that has no bearing on whether or not this article should exist. Instead there is consensus that this article is a fork of Gunpowder empires not allowed by our policies and guidelines and a weak consensus that it contains original research. There seems to be a consensus that this could be a valid target for articles hence the redirect after the deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Age of the Islamic Gunpowders[edit]

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

Content is Original Research which has been copied from Gunpowder Empires after that article was stubbed. I'm not sure Notability has been established for an entire article on this subject, and in its current form it is completely unacceptable as a Wikipedia article. Merlinme (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references for Age of the Islamic Gunpowders are all googlebooks searches. The closest to something actually establishing notability is probably Streusand, "Islamic Gunpowder Empires". The other references seem to be a mish mash of searches for Islamic Gunpowder Empires. Note, none of the sources cited actually establish any precedent for use of the term "Age of the Islamic Gunpowders" except in the Wikipedia article.Merlinme (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a mess. It's now been renamed Islamic Gunpowder empires, which I suppose is better than the previous name. I'm still not sure the term is commonly used enough to justify an entire article. Even if it is considered notable enough to have its own article, it surely has to be stubbed. Everything in the article after the first sentence is questionable. 90% of the lead is not properly sourced and does not reflect what's in the body of the article. Sample reference: "Unlike in Europe, the introduction of gunpowder weapons prompted changes well beyond military organization." Reference is Khan page 54. A more accurate reading of the reference would be something like, "As in Europe, the introduction of gunpowder weapons prompted changes well beyond military organization, although the exact changes were modified by local circumstances." I've got no idea what the next two sentences have to do with the subject of the article. The first section of the body is, at best, confusing, with unclear relevance to the article subject. If anything it seems to question the whole existence of the article subject at all. We then have three sections on the gunpowder weapons of the three empires. But the subject of the article is supposed to be Islamic Gunpowder Empires, not Islamic gunpowder weapons of the 16th and 17th centuries. The infobox is written as if they were one unitary empire that lasted over 200 years, when clearly there are massive differences between the Mughals and the Ottomans. Practically the entire article is Original Research, irrelevance and/ or misinformation. Merlinme (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The relevant lemma is Gunpowder empires. There is no separate Islamic phenomenon that would justify an article of its own. Recreating a stubified article with the same contentious material under a different name is a creative circumvention of WP policies. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page has been linked in many articles. Maps of the Islamic Gunpowders can also be found. The googlebooks searches include published books and can be referenced in manual style of wikipedia. There was such Islamic phenomen. The word Islamic Gunpowders has been used to express the three Muslim empires of the early modern period. The Muslim Empires of the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals by Stephen F. Dale can be taken into consideration. Maria José Afanador-Llach commented on Kris Lane's "The Emerald in the Age of Gunpowder Empires Hardcover":

Among the magnificent gems and jewels left behind by the great Islamic empires, emeralds stand out for their size and prominence. For the Mughals, Ottomans, and Safavids green was—as it remains for all Muslims—the color of Paradise, reserved for the Prophet Muhammad and his descendants. Lane demonstrates that emeralds flowed mostly to the Islamic gunpowder empires of Asia such as Mughal India and Safavid Persia.

The stubified article can be merged, otherwise it can be totally merged with Douglas E. Streusand, "Islamic Gunpowder Empires" (book) or The Emerald in the Age of Gunpowder Empires by Kris Lane.--Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are available sources concerning the concept, and the article cxould be expanded in ways that gunpowder empires could not. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary content fork of gunpowder empires. Merge any good material there. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, there are issues with the article, but most of this results from a series of unfortunate mistakes made in naming the article.

Some sources used the term "gunpowder empires" as a shorthand to describe and discuss these states collectively within their documents. The WP article for this subject was first created as Gunpowder Empires -- as if this name was a proper noun.
Per this discussion, the article was renamed Gunpowder empires to at least fix the capitalization. This only part of the title problem, however.
Since the article name didn't specify "Islamic" or any other distinction for what gunpowder-using empires were exclusive to the subject, various editors added various other empires, diluting the article. A follow-up discussion to fix this and clarify "Islamic" in the title was not concluded.
Meanwhile, an editor gutted the whole article back to only being about the shorthand term used in some sources -- probably not a subject worthy of an article. (As it stands, I would !vote for its merge/deletion and made a redirect to this article.)
This article was then created in an attempt to cover the original intended subject: several specific Islamic gunpowder empires of early modern history. Yet, again, it was titled poorly as Age of the Islamic Gunpowders. In the middle of a discussion to correct the title, it was moved to Islamic Gunpowder empires, with the "G" capitalized for some reason.

All this doesn't change the fact that the subject exists, is coherent, has sources, and is linked from many other articles. The title can obviously be fixed, and should probably be Islamic gunpowder empires to properly identify the subject. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The forked article consists solely of copy and paste material from Gunpowder empires and thus suffers from the same deep flaws outlined on its talk page (SYN and OR). Aside, none of the scholars cited in favour of "Islamic" gunpowder empires makes a case for them being a distinct phenomenon from the others in Europe and Asia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, flaws exist, but are addressable. Claiming the sources are simply wrong requires a separate discussion. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not wrong per se, but they are arranged in a thoroughly synthetical fashion. Most sources that are cited discuss weapons technology but on its own terms. They do not relate it to the concept of a gunpowder empire, much less to a supposedly specific Islamic version that would warrant an article of its own. The term is just introduced as a vessel which is then filled with unrelated material on warfare. This is WP:SYN. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article but discuss and restore further content to the Gunpowder empires article.

The new article should be deleted as "Gunpowder empires" was stubbed after a deletion discussion and this should have been discussed with the nominator and the closer, rather than copying disputed content into a new article.
However it should be possible to restore more content about the Ottoman, Safavid and Mughal empires as gunpowder empires, and move the original article to Islamic gunpowder empires. "Islamic gunpowder empires" is a notable subject based on the books by Marshall Hodgson, Douglas Streusand and Stephen Dale already mentioned. The June 2018 version of "Gunpowder empires" covered the three Islamic empires and appeared to be well referenced. Since June 2018 content on China, Japan and Europe was added as student projects, but didn't fit into the original article, and further questionable material was added to the lead and infobox. TSventon (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Gunpowder empires. However this will still leave an unbalanced article. This needs sections: (1) concept (2) gunpowder in western Europe (3) gunpowder in Islamic Empires (4) historiography - including criticism. It might in fact be better if the merged article were more focused on the adoption of gunpowder as a propellant in different places and only dealt (1) Western Europe (2) Ottomans (3) India (without emphasising that they were Islamic) and only then deal with the gunpowder empires concept and the criticism of it. There is the making of a worthwhile article here, if missing material on Europe is added. At present, the article(s) present the subject from a POV that overemphasises the Islamic aspects. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Islamic Gunpowder empires is a fork and an unattributed copyvio from the 6 March 2020 revision of Gunpowder empires which was stubbed following an AfD discussion. The current article cannot be kept as a fork, and the arguments about original research will have to be conducted at the original article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the main article could result in mass cleanup then we really don't need this WP:POVFORK which indeed violate copyrights by copy pasting without attribution. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is certainly WP:OR and WP:POVFORK from past versions of Gunpowder empires. Orientls (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gunpowder empires . I am against deletion as the term is searched for on the internet. I am against merging as it will open a new can of worms as to what content is to be added and what is to be left out. Gunpowder empires was just recently stubbed so there is no need to go through that all again. Redirect is the best solution, as people who search for the term will be able to find the information in Gunpowder empires. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been linked with other important pages. The topic is pretty remarkable, but I wonder about its title. Age of the Gunpowders is not only built upon the three Muslim powers of the 17th century.--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As mentioned by A D Monroe III Meanwhile, an editor gutted the whole article back to only being about the shorthand term used in some sources -- probably not a subject worthy of an article. The Fork is not the primary issue, as it was made much later. If the page is merged, it should be renamed Islamic Gunpowder powders and all removed contents (good works) should be added back. The AfD discussion was just a rapid one, participated by few editors, therefore not a valid discussion.--Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that name should be "Islamic gunpowder empires".

I agree that claims of fork is not an issue, as the two articles currently share virtually no content after the lone-editor gutting of the first. I do agree only one article is needed, and that if this subject doesn't merit an article, then the other article would also be deleted as having even less merit. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note if kept, someone should provide the full reference for "Pagaza & Argyriades 2009" (current ref #1) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COPYVIO concerns. There's more than ample space for any useful information to end up on Gunpowder empires. CMD (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, copyvio or fork?Kapokbirdnotflying (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of initial attribution meant that the original fork was a copyvio of the previous article. I don't think the later note added in the history suffices, as it is not definitively worded. CMD (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or restore the previous article. The original article should never have been deleted in the first place. It's odd that the shortened stub that it has been replaced with mentions none of the Islamic gunpowder empires which are mentioned several times when searching "gunpowder empires" using Google. Whatever the case for attribution may be, the linkage between the term "gunpowder empires" and the three Islamic empires seems to be a persistent one and the article gunpowder empires currently does not reflect that. GPM also has a history of deleting article content focusing on Asian history and replacing or changing it to favour Western history, often using obscure or fringe sources. See [44] for his run in with me and another editor.Qiushufang (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a WP:POVFORK and unattributed copyviolation of Gunpowder empires.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McBride[edit]

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

No notable wrestler, fails WP:GNG. Only has worked on a regional level, sources mention him because it's the result of events, not focused on him. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Have to agree with HHH Pedrigree. Page fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also has very lousy sourcing, Online World of Wrestling is used, which is unreliable per WP:PW/Sources and forums and blogs are used as citations as well, both of which are also unreliable according to WP:RSE. In addition, the article is also very outdated, it makes no mention of his ROH appearances in 2012, which still wouldn't make him notable as four appearances for a major company as a jobber doesn't make you anymore famous. A very poorly written page for a non-significant regional journeyman wrestler, just one of the thousands. DTH89^{(sexy talk page)} 13:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mabrur Rashid Bannah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person as per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Another discussion has made for deletion in native Wiki. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 09:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moheen Reeyad: as the article has plenty of references and some of them appear to be from reliable sources, could you say 1. which ones you think come from unreliable sources and 2. which ones have reliable sources but don't help demonstrate notability? This would be helpful to editors who don't read Bengali. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable director. Don't get any award also i found some telefilm and drams he work but most of drams YouTube upload related. I don't this pass GNG its important to keep this article. In feature maybe hope pass WP:GNG. 37.111.217.218 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The version on bn.wikipedia was recently deleted because of alleged undeclared paid editing. I'm not privy to whatever evidence there is of that, nor can I see how similar that article was to this one. However, this article's content is almost unchanged since the prior deletion discussion decided to keep it 3 years ago. Notifying all participants in that discussion as interested parties (Devopam, Cullen, nafSadh). --Worldbruce (talk) 06:08, 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 delete. Sandstein 14:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redcliffe Partners[edit]

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and mostly self-sourced. Mccapra (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:07, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polish coins and banknotes[edit]

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

This article is essentially a gallery of non-free images of the Polish złoty. (In fact, it has the second highest number of non-free files on the project). There is no prose, and while there's not an explicit bullet point that addresses this, WP:INDISCRIMINATE certainly feels like it applies. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. While it could use either more prose or renaming to a 'list of', it seems like it clearly meets GNG or WP:NLIST.PS. On serhaps a merger with Polish złoty would be appropriate, since it is de facto a fork of that concept. Well, at least that's where Polish currency redirects to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to a merge, but I would be opposed to any solution that doesn't result in a significant reduction in the number of non-free images in the resulting article(s). If this article is kept, I'll follow up with an FfD for most of the images. If this article is merged, we can just orphan most of them and they'll get deleted procedurally. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page does not seem significantly different to another similar page which I sampled: Coins of the United States dollar. If the nominator wants more prose then they should please add some. This is not done by deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the nominator's main issue with the article is number of non-free images or lack of prose, there are other ways to improve it rather than delete. Deletion is the last resort. Generally the article meets notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Fisher[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON (because neither list "notable draft prospect" as a reason to presume notability) and WP:ANYBIO. Despite, or even with, the vague undefined WP:CRYSTAL reason for removing the PROD, it's TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First-team All-Big Ten linebacker (and third-team All-American) who passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in mainstream media outlets. E.g., (1) "Already a Star for Northwestern, Paddy Fisher Is Just Getting Started", Sports Illustrated, 8/30/19; (2) NU linebacker history lesson, Chicago Tribune, 12/29/17, part 1, part 2, (3) "NU's 'Tex', lies and videotape", Chicago Tribune, 10/31/17; (4) "Pundits impressed by Katy's Fisher: Katy linebacker lands spot on Super Team", Houston Chronicle, 6/30/15, (5) "A town, a bond, a star: How Paddy Fisher became the face of Northwestern’s defense", SB Nation, 6/27/18. Cbl62 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a bit of an edge case, but appears to just clear the sigcov bar. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources presented by Cbl62. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freshman all-american honors points toward WP:IMPACT which is a good indication of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Definitely meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:24, 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. Sandstein 14:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kryss Shane[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR - the book that is said to have been "released" seems to only be available for pre-order and has not yet actually been released. All eight criteria at WP:NACADEMIC appear to fail as well. Given the fact that one of the first release dates I can find for this book is just a few weeks from today, I worry that one or more editors here could be the subject herself or a close connection, violating WP:AB and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Paradox society 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paradox society 06:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick Google search for the original author's username "Munchkin1616" provides strong evidence that this user is the subject of the article. Definite WP:COI. Paradox society 06:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON for WP:NAUTHOR, which usually requires at least 2 (published) books with several reviews in reliable sources. There are a couple of passing mentions in the NYTimes + local news, but nothing that looks like a pass of GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - These types of articles are always hard, because they often seem like shadow promotional sites. In some of the refs, like Oprah and Rolling Stone, she's just handing out pretty generic advice. I'm also always suspicious when book blurbs are by other authors, not professional critics from RS. Caro7200 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable business consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1930:E530:8C5C:DAD0:2C87:C21A (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 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. Sandstein 08:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Sean Reed[edit]

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

Recent news story with does not satisfy. This is a case of WP:BLP1E this story or person has yet proven notabilty. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable. BLP1E is irrelevant since this is not the BLP article but the event article. The article has just been created, you shouldn't have nominated it for deletion this early.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are not a news site. This happened fucking yesterday, there is absolutely no way this can possible satisfy WP:N (which demands that topics have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time) at this early stage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing seems out of the ordinary, by police shooting standards (at least from early reports). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't look like a lot of unique info can be provided for the article at this moment. Love of Corey (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SharabSalam is correct. Since the article is not about a person, let alone a living one, but instead an event, it is outside the scope of WP:BLP1E. The relevant guideline is also not WP:N, but specifically Wikipedia:Notability (events). Additionally, this nomination seems very premature, as not by other users, hardly two days have passed. In terms of notability, Times has an article regarding the shooting and it stands out from other shootings because it was streamed live online. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect in a number of ways. All notability guidelines are subsidiary to the standards of WP:N. The subject-specific guidelines simply provide scope and guidance for judging notability for particular topics. Even if you insist we go by WP:EVENT, you're still wrong, because the nutshell at the top of that page reads as follows: An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope.
It's not the nomination that's premature, but the article's creation - two days is far from enough time to determine if the coverage "persists over a period of time". One Time article two days later does not constitute persistent coverage. Live streaming crime is hardly unique these days, so the circumstances do not automatically grant it notability, not unless reliable independent sources cover it at a wide scale for a length of time, indicating some kind of lasting social impact. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of time, Time is a singular magazine, not like those online newspapers people sometimes call "the Times". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Update [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WWGB (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WWGB - also, if an event article's main focus is a person and includes their biographical detail, of course it's covered by WP:BLP1E. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after seeing that nobody is expanding the article, I changed my vote to delete. Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:46, 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. Sandstein 14:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Gorin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources beyond quick quotes of Gorin speaking on behalf of his clients. Does not meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was named best lawyers in America for the past 5 years. Appeared on multiple reliable sources as per WP:GNG. 50.53.143.179 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of lawyers in America, a single lawyer winning the same award five times in a row IMO says more about the award than it does about the recipient. Which sources exactly did you think contribute to meeting GNG? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^[cont] 04:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the very fact he won the award so many times makes it almost certainly not a sign of notability. Nothing else notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I got myself registered in response to the above comments. If awards doesn't counts as being notable then what else? Anyway, based on WP:GNG used as a tool here, Dmitry Gorin's notability on WP is demonstrated by (1) representing cases with celebrities in cases of Suge-Knight, Cathy Griffin, Sergey Kovalev, and other famous actors and athletes (cited in the article) (2) being the only criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles featured in the cover-story in 2020 SuperLawyers magazing (cited in the article) (3) the Best U.S. Lawyers general criminal defense designation is given to fewer than 10 lawyers in Los Angeles (US Best Lawyers website) (4) The Los Angeles Times has referred to him as an expert in criminal defense over many years (news Dmitry Gorin - Google) (5) Comparing his article to others published on WP, as criminal defense lawyers in California (ie attorneys Sara Azari, Lawrence Taylor, Mia Yamamoto), he has the same or more notability from published trusted sources. Numerous interviews about his cases on YouTube and other sources further demonstrate he has represented some of the most notable cases in the U.S. CarolynMP (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reasons presented by CarolynMP are not compelling and show a tenuous grasp of WP:GNG and is also very likely a double vote. Notability cannot be inherited. Getting coverage because you are representing someone famous does little, if anything, to demonstrate notability. WP:BEFORE turns up no coverage of the subject independent of established notable subjects. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sulfurboy. Passing mentions in articles about cases he's been involved in don't establish notability, nor do press releases from the subject's firm his winning a non-notable award. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:43, 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 delete. Sandstein 14:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Briarwood Canyon, California[edit]

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

This appears to be a misreading of "Bridlewood Canyon", a non-notable gated community. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an odd one. A search for "Briarwood Canyon" brings up several hits for a "Briarwood" and "Canyon {something or other}" development near Sacramento, but in the wrong county. A search for "Bridlewood Canyon" brings up hits in the general vicinity, but nothing more substantial than "this is a new housing development." Fails WP:GNG and really, WP:V as well. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman Point, California[edit]

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

Non-notable hilltop mislabeled as a "populated place" in GNIS database. –dlthewave ☎ 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete False information introduced by negligent mass-creation, clearly a peak on topo. Reywas92^Talk 04:55, 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 08:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Lovett[edit]

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

No claim of inherent notability. Being a notable person's lawyer does not count. Note that this article has been significantly reduced from what looked suspiciously like a COI copyvio of an obituary; commenters may want to check the article's history to see if anything in there might make this person independently notable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only a handful of passing mentions, does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer. Just because someones clients are notable does not mean they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tagged it for A7, which then declined. I still though it might warrant deletion which I would've waited 7‒30 days, but here we are. If this is not going to be deleted, then Userfy/Draftify. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 20:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There is indication for Draftify by the author of the article. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:31, 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 redirect to Grizzly Flats, California. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly Peak, California[edit]

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

BEFORE search did not return evidence of an unincorporated community at this location; maps show a subdivision and the summit of a hill, neither of which appear to be notable. Please note that there is an unrelated Grizzly Peak near Berkeley. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grizzly Flats, California, which it appears to be a subdivision of. CJK09 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Thicket Creekmore Village, Texas[edit]

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

This unlikely name appears to be an error. The location is adjacent to a section of Big Thicket National Preserve, and I found several newspapers.com results for lots in a "Creekmore Village" subdivision but nothing that would establish notability. My best guess is that the two names appeared next to each other on the 1985 county highway map and were interpreted as a single name by GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 02:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also agree that something else is more notable carrying same name as the subject. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 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. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peach Pu, Arizona[edit]

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

Not a notable community, no significant coverage outside of various maps and tables. Topo and satellite views show signs of a ranch but nothing else. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not a community. Reywas92^Talk 21:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to locate any sources supporting this as a populated place (other than GNIS). Magnolia677 (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation per a Arizona Dept of Health Services list of Arizona Indian reservation communities (found in google, I couldn't get a link to work though). Far from enough sources for it to be independently notable, but a redirect and mention in the article on the Tohono O'odham reservation would help anyone searching for this place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 20:25, 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. Consensus has been reached that this place does not meet the criteria of NGEO or other notability guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tin House, Arizona[edit]

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

This is a, um, tin house. No sign of a notable populated place at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a "tin house". It is described as a populated place by the GNIS see U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 7. I've added a bit to the article as it was rather a brief stub needing some detail. Carry on ... Vsmith (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not a community. Vsmith, please review User:Dlthewave/GNIS and the archives of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography for the unreliability of GNIS. Pointing out the relative locations of actual places is not useful content about the subject. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing whether or not to delete, rather I took a look at the stub and added a bit of info regarding its location in relation to the surrounding area which should be of interest to anyone reading about the place. Carry on. Vsmith (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, GNIS is not a reliable source for whether a community actually exists or existed, there is no indication this was one and as such it does not pass GEOLAND. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satalite image shows a number of buildings there. This map has it marked as a town, and this blog identifies it as a place. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that two plus a shed is "a number", but that doesn't make it a community or notable place. Map also marks Rose Well Camp, Arizona (sat has a handful of buildings on this ranch) – have we really not learned that maps reuse the same data set and are not always reliable? I actually found a mention of Tin House in the archives – surprise it's just one dude's cattle ranch! Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a populated place, just a remote ranch camp in rural western Coconino County. As a private ranch, I don't even see a point in keeping a redirect to the county article where is is currently listed. MB 23:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 20:27, 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 Materialscientist (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K3 Cine Creations[edit]

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

This film production company has only produced one film, Thittivasal, which wasn't successful. Other that that films, the company has not produced any other films and there are no reliable sources that prove that the production company is notable. This article should either be deleted or be redirected to Thittivasal. -- TamilMirchi— Preceding unsigned comment added by TamilMirchi (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Delete a quick independent search does not find SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Idan (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:25, 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. The current consensus is for the list to be kept; acknowledging the result of this discussion may lead to re-nomination for deletion. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian names in space[edit]

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

Strangely named(in my opinion at least) OR list MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suggest withdrawing and waiting for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Countries in space to come to a conclusion, then re-nominating if required. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The name could be improved, but the subject-matter looks as encyclopaedic as that of List of Russian exonyms. Narky Blert (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not see anything inherently problematic with such lists to warrant deletion. The criteria for selection are well defined, and list can be made sufficiently complete. The country was one of the important participants in space exploration. The template "names in space" (at the bottom of the page) also seem to be reasonable and connects such lists. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with My very best wishes. This list actually has more items than most of the other "(Country) names in space" lists, so it's not clear why the nominator would choose this particular list for deletion, rather than one of the other sixteen. It seems arbitrary to me. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:LIST so there's no reason for deletion. The naming seems a bit odd to me, but it's not a reason for deletion. Less Unless (talk) 11:29, 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.

[1] "Lock Jaw Official Video". Youtube. Retrieved 7 November 2019.

[2] "Cook Thugless Band Camp Page". Band Camp. Retrieved 6 November 2019.

[3] Cook Thugless - lost in LA (Official Music Video), retrieved 2019-12-13

[4] Cook Thugless - lost in LA (Official Music Video), retrieved 2019-12-13

[5] ttps://www.elevatormag.com/cook-thugless-mosh-pit

[6] ttps://www.theaquarian.com/2019/01/10/makin-waves-record-of-the-week-cook-thugless-luxe/

[7] ttp://voyagela.com/interview/meet-keith-lalley-and-jean-louis-droulers-of-cook-thugless/

[8] ttps://www.laweekly.com/events/wyclef-jean-with-cook-thugless/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]