Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 30	November 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MC Shadow[edit]

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

This article is 10 years old, but seems to bear the hallmarks of an elaborate publicity project that fails WP:NBAND.

The editor who created and still primarily maintains this article is very obviously the subject itself. All of the Commons images depicting this person, some of which go back to the late 1980s, were uploaded by this user and are tagged as "own work." The user has admitted that he owns the rights to the subject and its associated band as well. Going through the edit history of the article, this editor and some IPs with similar editing habits are the only ones who have been able to contribute anything substantial to this article, and the only other significant changes to content have been to remove puffery or unverified claims.

As a BLP, this article is very problematic as so much of it is either unreferenced, or based on very dubious sources. Going through the list of references:

Parts of the lead, which include the artist's WP:CCS of being the world's second white rapper, are attributed to a "distribution agreement" from 1988 that does not seem to be publicly accessible in any form.
The early history of this subject is completely unreferenced and searches for key terms such as "Def Force Sound Crew" and "MC Rumble" don't turn up any results connecting them to the subject.
The 1988 section attributes the subject's presence on a local chart to the home page of "East Park Productions" - an organization connected to the subject - and attributes a claim about a record being on "a list of most collectible Toronto albums" to an WP:SPS.
The 2014 section is mostly unreferenced while making claims that a video project apparently titled "Resurrection" was un undertaking of "the first of its kind in any music genre." I was unable to find any objective evidence of this other than the student paper which one part has cited.
The "Collaborations" section says that the subject has collaborated with a number of other artists, but uses references to the Juno Awards and an associated Vancouver Sun publication which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject itself.

I counted two sources that could potentially establish notability, but I'm unable to find the source content, and I doubt that it's enough to substantiate an article of this length.

On top of this, I've identified three other articles related to this subject which, in my opinion, should be deleted in tandem:

East Park Productions, Get Loose Crew and Get Loose Crew (album) were created by the same user, and describe, respectively, a record label founded and operated by "MC Shadow," and then the band and associated debut album in which "MC Shadow" participated. Much of the information overlaps with the MC Shadow article. Bizarrely, the East Park article has no references at all except one to the same student paper mentioned above, and the other articles rely on several of the same poor sources used in the MC Shadow article. I found nothing in an internet search that would establish notability for an article for any of them. —{Canuck lehead} 23:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other AFDs of note, which were about songs attributed to this artist: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wannabe (Get Loose Crew song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost (MC Shadow song). —{Canuck lehead} 00:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: no independent coverage The Ace in Spades (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - COI issues aside, this clearly fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG Spiderone 09:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his marginally more notable group Get Loose Crew, although their article needs a lot of work too. As the nominator found, all the articles were created by the same person and share the same problems, including sizable chunks of repeated text. Mr. Shadow had a few solo activities but none attracted any reliable media interest, and he has achieved little outside the group. His article is dependent on sources that are actually about Get Loose Crew or other people with whom he briefly collaborated, and the whole thing is probably copied from an old promotional website. And finally, do not confuse this guy with the far more notable DJ Shadow. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 22:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeand redirect all per Doomsdayer520. ♟♙ (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the contributor, I am going to present information to support keeping the topic intact and not deleting, as soon as possible and within this time allotted period of review. I have responded in great detail to the assertion or suggestion made that I am the Topic. In short, I am not. I have reviewed the terms with respect to potential or actual COI and I have none. Due to the harsh severity of nominating this topic for deletion, I will be responding properly, appropriately and with the greatest of respect to something that I feel has been mischaracterized and misrepresented. This is not a job and I am not a professional writer, editor etc. I am just a person with interest in this topic and some related ones and I have enjoyed being a contributor and very amateur writer on this and related topics. Its (respectfully) a hobby and I have to take time to put together as much supportive points that are relevant to support NOT DELETING this topic. Also, the other 2 topics. Thank youOldschoolmc (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at best merge into Get Loose Crew per nom (if Get Loose Crew is a viable article itself, which is debatable). If all the uncited text and tables is disregarded or removed, we are left with a very small amount of text with sources that are either self-referencing (by the band or this subject), don't or only marginally mention this person, and are from blog or unreliable sites, not from multiple reliable or nationally recognized publications. This 'article' (a thinly disguised promo piece), has been around for ten years... over long enough to provide any evidence that the subject is notable. If a decision is made to keep this BLP, it would require a complete flush out of the unsourced, leaving it for the readers a very insubstantial and unenlightening stub, which might be eligible for a merge somewhere. Acabashi (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a non-notability head template to East Park Productions, Get Loose Crew and Get Loose Crew (album), identified by the nominator above, adding a rationale, and link to this page, on the Talk Pages, to perhaps find further contributors to this discussion. Acabashi (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I am responding directly to the suggestions, assertions and am I providing substantive positions, explanations and defence to the nomination proposed, and to NOT have the article deleted at this time. I am just a person who was interested writing and making contributions as a quasi editor, and felt kind of important and relevant about writing about a topic (creating articles), that I have a genuine interest in. I didn’t expect to have unverified attacks or negative assertions hurled at me. Or be bombarded with a lot of negativity and really abrasive suggestions and accusations. I am responding in length to each point made by the requestor to delete based upon their original points in the nomination for deletion. I have communicated to the subject via email and informed him as to what is happening with his Wikipedia page and the related topics. I have asked him to provide any new material sources that can be verified for inclusion to support NOT having the page deleted. I thank you in advance for your patience. My responses are in italics. ASSERTION - This article is 10 years old, but seems to bear the hallmarks of an elaborate publicity project that fails WP:NBAND. REBUTTAL - It is not a publicity project or effort to sell services or advertise for services. Whether it is weak or requires improvement, it is and has always been as intended – a Topic of a relevant person, who’s accomplishment has been researched, subject of university study, interviewed and otherwise documented and supported by sources by credible and notable academics, journalists, music industry professionals, and scholars a) Graduate School Researcher and former Vancouver DJ that played his music in the 1990’s and interviewed the subject and others as identified as local pioneers that played a crucial role in developing the local (Toronto) scene, b) An adjunct professor at Toronto's Ryerson University, as well as the founder of Northside Hip Hop Archive whom is a contact to the person (artist) and surrounding artists, hosted the TDot Pioneers Exhibit collected and displayed artifacts and information related to the artist on his organization’s website and his knowledge of the Canadian/Toronto hip hop music scene. The Topic person discussed here was an attendee and photographic proof shows him with other pioneer individuals that established hip hop in Toronto. I don’t know these individuals or how to contact them but know of their performances and presence on radio and video in Toronto. c) A postdoctoral fellow at the Jackman Humanities Institute, University of Toronto. conducting academic Research study that traces the history of Toronto Hip Hop, and the relationship that Hip Hop practitioners and industry professionals have had to the music marketplace and creative industries in both the City of Toronto and Canada. Invited the person (artist/topic) to participate in this research because (quote from copy of release issued from the University of Toronto) “he has been identified as prominent member of Toronto’s Hip Hop history and the history of Canada’s culture industries.” This research project, which will focus on the historical period of 1985 – 2020 and include the interview material of 50 participants, will explore how the Toronto Hip Hop scene has unfolded over the past thirty-five years.

This research conducted by Dr. Francesca D’Amico-Cuthbert a postdoctoral fellow at the Jackman Humanities Institute – housed at the University of Toronto. A historian of Hip Hop culture and Black popular music to date, her published research has focused on the history of Hip Hop and Rap music (in both the United States and Canada), Hip Hop pedagogy and educational curriculum, and the history of other Black popular music forms such as Soul, Funk and Disco. *This latter section is from a document release form that was emailed to me by the subject that he has provided to the people doing the research.

Peripheral source information that would be included, (I have been researching and trying to obtain copies of include) An interview with (also a Topic) Maestro Fresh Wes (Wes Williams) on MTV (City Much Music Toronto) whereby he comments and acknowledges the accomplishment (details contained within Topic) on the ‘Get Loose Crew’ (related Topic) inclusive of the person/artist MC Shadow and also an Episode of ‘Narduwar’ (also a Topic) where he discussed and acknowledges the group (Topic Get Loose Crew) and (Topic MC Shadow) and is holding a copy of the groups 1988 release in his hand, in camera view. Research has been ongoing to identify the Episode, segment and specific time to cite as a reference in support of both topics. Independent writer and music critic Samantha Stevens (cited), Streetsound Publication contributor Jonbronski (cited Writer), and media interviews with Eric Tunney CBC Television show to be transcribed and Radio interview with (defunct) CKLN Ryerson University Radio personality and hip hop historian Radio Interview (to be transcribed) by Ron Nelson (Topic) CKLN radio. ASSERTION - The editor who created and still primarily maintains this article is very obviously the subject itself. REBUTTAL - The editor has made submissions since inception. The editor and author are not the subject itself and have been detailed in the Wiki section question COI. ASSERTION - All of the Commons images depicting this person, some of which go back to the late 1980s, were uploaded by this user and are tagged as "own work." REBUTTAL - The Commons items have been labeled own work both due to inexperience at the time of submission that was the choice to avoid constraints of potential copyright. Ignorance is not necessarily an excuse, but material asked for, received, or provided upon request of an individual or party for the purposes of submission can be construed or suggested own work. Simply because the copied material is now material in the possession of the editor as an individual. Copies were made to protect originals from being lost or destroyed. No foolish individual would provide a stranger ‘original works at the risk of loss or destruction. The error here on my part, is that the works should have been identified as; not an original document or file and is a copy provided for free use at the consent of the subject for furtherance of the article. The liability would befall the editor if the images or documents or files were obtained inappropriately and used without consent. I am pretty sure that a poor 1980’s rapper would be able to find a lawyer that would take up an opportunity to sue someone who exploited their image without consent – and has the documents to back that up. The files provided were non copyright free use material upon consent provided by the subject. This in turn grants me permission to use and or exploit the files provided to me as ‘copies provided with no expectation that they be returned’. If I were to profit by way of financial compensation, that protection would no longer extend to me based upon the representation (requests) originally made to obtain material to substantiate, support and include in the article. The copies supplied by the subject was indicated to him, on the basis that could substantiate existing lighter citation or demonstrate clarity to information and claims submitted. Nothing was submitted or provided by the subject that generates compensation or is an effort to sell the subject. ASSERTION - The user has admitted that he owns the rights to the subject and its associated band as well. REBUTTAL - The statement attributed to “owning the rights to the subject” is explicitly relating to mechanical exploitation or informal licencing through means of providing files, documents, media and access to sources (upon approval) to submit exclusively to the Wikipedia project. The editor (me) has no rights to exercise beyond that specifically, and other than any purchased or traded artifacts amongst Hip Hop enthusiasts of the day (flyers, material items, hats, clothing) which was frequently done. (I personally traded items back them with people and are some valuable collectables now for me). The other members of the band have all gone onto greater and successful pursuits; including being the first JUNO award winner for Rap Music in Canada and has its own controversy attached to the member whom is also a TOPIC in Wikipedia (BKool/Carl Badwa). The person who could be regarded as a ‘curator’ (Mr. Grant-Stuart) with substantial material and documents to lift up the Get Loose Crew article and in turn this one passed away late last year. Retrieving material from him or his estate is not possible. ASSERTION - Going through the edit history of the article, this editor and some IPs with similar editing habits are the only ones who have been able to contribute anything substantial to this article, and the only other significant changes to content have been to remove puffery or unverified claims. REBUTTAL - This in my opinion is a bit of a personal attack. It has sufficient negative tone, and is just not very nice. IP information is hardly reliance in any form of identification standard (I don’t believe the individual is suggesting that they are a Cybersecurity expert), and coupled with the suggestion of some analysis of editing habits? That’s a very precarious suggestion that should come from an Intelligence Analyst competent in identifying pattern of speech, written word, or similar forensics. I am being a little silly here, because this process and some of the hard line unpleasantries are … silly. I am not an academic, scholar or wizard on this platform or a well versed or skilled ‘editor’ as referred to. I am a person, who was very interested about writing about and gathering data about this subject. It’s a work in progress. Isn’t that what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? I appreciate standards and rules, but it kind of seems like a bit of an attack with desire of all out cancellation? ASSERTION - As a BLP, this article is very problematic as so much of it is either unreferenced, or based on very dubious sources. REBUTTAL - ‘Dubious’? Why such sinister tone? Is it necessary and is this attitude overall being a bit of an attack and not an effort to substantively review and question items to perhaps improve the article? Seems kind of harsh that its an ‘all or nothing’ ‘take it down’ and all other references to the subject. Seems destructive. Just my side thought.

Going through the list of references: • ASSERTION - Parts of the lead, which include the artist's WP:CCS of being the world's second white rapper, are attributed to a "distribution agreement" from 1988 that does not seem to be publicly accessible in any form. REBUTTAL - Its a duly executed contract registered in the province of Ontario and as an executed contract entered into, would be available and accessible publicly at any time upon request of the parties’ thorough counsel. I am sure that if anyone requested a copy of contract from either party (outside of subpoena) or court order, that could easily be done. Alternately, please direct me to where the image (approved by the subject) could be posted on Wikipedia to be viewed and confirmed. As I understand it some of the documents and other things they have will be put on their website. I do know that some of the content of the contract per se has been referenced in television media (referenced in this long response) but I can’t write that as ‘editor’ herein. That media is sought and appropriate references can and will be cited when available. • ASSERTION - The early history of this subject is completely unreferenced and searches for key terms such as "Def Force Sound Crew" and "MC Rumble" don't turn up any results connecting them to the subject. REBUTTAL - The name “Def Force Sound Crew" was related by the subject as a band or group that those guys were all in together before they released their record. This is common among rock bands, where they were one name and then another. I have seen on social media, crude media (subjective word) advertisements for that group’s performances at local shows, but nothing I felt that I could submit it. The other thing is much of this history from sources is just appearing. A person (not knowing) would really have to understand and appreciate the genre and political landscape. Simply put, many people in Toronto and Canada (if they even care) believe that Hip Hop and Rap began with Drake (Topic). Others believe it was before him but after 1991 with a subject called Kardinal Official. Some who think that they know their history really well think that its Maestro Fresh Wes (Topic) preceding him in 1990. The irony, is that this subject (Topic) precedes all of these people and on a historical scale. The subject has been acknowledged and validated by HIS PEERS through various accounts that are making their way in this organic article. As for the "MC Rumble", he is known as David Morgan by name and has been described by people as private and elusive. He rebuked the most recent spotlight at the CBC Hip Hop Summit a few years ago by walking around on stage, talking and then bizarrely leaving. He avoided any interviews and apparently disappeared from the event. MC Rumble has not released any material known of since the 1990’s and reference to him by the subject (in the article) was in response to questions surrounding, “What inspired or drew you to being a rapper” “What motivated you release your record” “What was the path like as a rapper to putting out a record”. It is clear that the subject was an independent artist and not on a major record label. There is information and history to account for this but it something anticipated in citing’s and supportive sources and not my account or received information. I have been doing my best to post information and not come off like the expert. Because simply, I am not. If that has created an image of “puffery’, then that is because I am not a true editor or biographer and have been trying to do my best in this community. • ASSERTION - The 1988 section attributes the subject's presence on a local chart to the home page of "East Park Productions" - an organization connected to the subject - and attributes a claim about a record being on "a list of most collectible Toronto albums" to an WP:SPS. REBUTTAL - The subject has responded to the question of “where is your East Park Productions website”, responding to the effect that it is apparently under construction and offline because it was old looking. A new webmaster is working on the new site. I surmise that would be where the cited reference will be viewable to confirm. The reference "a list of most collectible Toronto albums", is what I found during my internet research. It is called TO Blog and has a credentialed writer and is not a recreational hobby site. I have emailed and tried to contact the author of the article to no avail. They aren’t responding to enquiries. Even when I have indicated that I am a contributor to Wikipedia and are looking for some source support. • ASSERTION -The 2014 section is mostly unreferenced while making claims that a video project apparently titled "Resurrection" was un undertaking of "the first of its kind in any music genre." I was unable to find any objective evidence of this other than the student paper which one part has cited. REBUTTAL - I would go further to support your point and actually call this section ‘sloppy’, ‘haphazard’ and not my finest effort. I can attest to the statement separate from any comment by anyone that the project the subject is doing, and is not yet completed is truly and accurately one of a kind for any form of music. The fact is simple that nowhere in music by any group, band, or otherwise has anyone attempted or completed the project he is working on. It is not simply explained, and I had trouble understanding it at first, but it’s a project that once complete will have never been created before and is evidenced nowhere else currently. Please remember, that despite the source does not write for a major publication or renowned music media outlet that does not negate, disqualify or otherwise belittle their commentary. If it had been to the contrary and not supportive, perhaps these viewpoints would (presumably) be considered valid as “objective evidence”. • ASSERTION - The "Collaborations" section says that the subject has collaborated with a number of other artists, but uses references to the Juno Awards and an associated Vancouver Sun publication which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject itself. REBUTTAL - The collaborations section identifies an artist in Vancouver, his significance and JUNO success. The article and a refence to the JUNO awards specifically attribute to Nelson Garcia’s success as a collaborator whose art is the cover work for all of the subjects indicated releases. The Vancouver Sun is source to substantiate and to not negate the credibility of Mr. Garcia. Some of the other artists weblinks were removed by other editors, in particular Sarah Beatty, who has an interview with a reliable and credible source and discusses the subject and collaboration, etc. Its a double-edged sword. Links went up, links taken down. I understand this be an organic and developmental process, even when efforts to grow the article are shot down or taken down. ASSERTION - I counted two sources that could potentially establish notability, but I'm unable to find the source content, and I doubt that it's enough to substantiate an article of this length. REBUTTAL - There is respectfully sufficient source content and there is as with any process that is supposed to be community and contributory. At the risk of an even further response, I am confirming that the subject has identified at request by the editor in support of keeping this article any sources or updated information to assist. I am copying that information below and can also state that material ability to connect to it, request it, and verify it and the sources are forthcoming. First, Graduate School Researcher and former Vancouver DJ interviewed this person and others as identified as local pioneers that played a crucial role in developing the local (Toronto) scene, 2) An adjunct professor at Toronto's Ryerson University, as well as the founder of Northside Hip Hop Archive whom is a contact to the person (artist) and surrounding artists, hosted the TDot Pioneers Exhibit collected and displayed artifacts and information related to the artist on his organization’s website and his knowledge of the Canadian/Toronto hip hop music scene. The Topic person discussed here was an attendee and photographic proof shows him with other pioneer individuals that established hip hop in Toronto. I don’t know these individuals or how to contact them but know of their performances and presence on radio and video in Toronto. 3) A postdoctoral fellow at the Jackman Humanities Institute, University of Toronto. conducting academic Research study that traces the history of Toronto Hip Hop, and the relationship that Hip Hop practitioners and industry professionals have had to the music marketplace and creative industries in both the City of Toronto and Canada. Invited the person (artist/topic) to participate in this research because (quote from release issued) “he has been identified as prominent member of Toronto’s Hip Hop history and the history of Canada’s culture industries.” This research project, which will focus on the historical period of 1985 – 2020 and include the interview material of 50 participants, will explore how the Toronto Hip Hop scene has unfolded over the past thirty-five years. This research conducted by Dr. Francesca D’Amico-Cuthbert a postdoctoral fellow at the Jackman Humanities Institute – housed at the University of Toronto. A historian of Hip Hop culture and Black popular music to date, her published research has focused on the history of Hip Hop and Rap music (in both the United States and Canada), Hip Hop pedagogy and educational curriculum, and the history of other Black popular music forms such as Soul, Funk and Disco. *This latter section is from a document release form that was emailed to me by the person that he has provided to the people doing the research. A monolithic member of the earliest days of Hip Hop in Canada and undisputable source is writer, DJ and producer John 'Johnbronski' Adams who was a major figure in the early era of Toronto hip-hop music as credited by CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation). He is cited as a source who directly interviewed the subject, the other group members and establishes timeline and context to the article. This is a dated interview, with a now defunct publication. The information in the reference is taken from a supplied copy of the original magazine. Its condition is aged and there isn’t anywhere that I could establish posting it, other than a refence to the material I was supplied with. ASSERTION - On top of this, I've identified three other articles related to this subject which, in my opinion, should be deleted in tandem: East Park Productions, Get Loose Crew and Get Loose Crew (album) were created by the same user, and describe, respectively, a record label founded and operated by "MC Shadow," and then the band and associated debut album in which "MC Shadow" participated. Much of the information overlaps with the MC Shadow article. Bizarrely, the East Park article has no references at all except one to the same student paper mentioned above, and the other articles rely on several of the same poor sources used in the MC Shadow article. I found nothing in an internet search that would establish notability for an article for any of them. REBUTTAL – It is insulting to belittle the independent critical offering of Samantha Stevens as a student paper. Its certainly not a national publication, but it is a magazine (referred as such) and available online. Its certainly not a paper as characterized, and limited to a campus newspaper box or similar shelf or container. Again, that’s not very nice. Respectfully, I can explain the creation of East Park Productions easiest. As the only other independent Hip Hop label next to Beat Factory Productions in Toronto, I created the article as I felt that it would contribute and expand as an article with increased submission activity. I researched through Wikipedia other similar entities and with available information (weak or otherwise), set out to create this article for contribution and discussion. Get Loose Crew is the origin of subject, but the subject ultimately is the story and separated, grew and achieved outside of the contributions to that article. The most prominent articles are MC Shadow and The Get Loose Crew. They have significant separate relevancy. Some have been addressed in other articles by other artists one of the band members who has adopted other performance names and is a from of subject within 2 articles. All of this information is supported by significant credible developments and awakenings within the origins of this subject’s participation and existence in the Canadian music industry. Among much anticipated information to be submitted for review the boldest and compelling available source statement (retrieved on consent from the University of Toronto’s documentation on their letterhead) “he (the subject) has been identified as prominent member of Toronto’s Hip Hop history and the history of Canada’s culture industries.” And further stated to substantiate the timeline for the subject, “This research project, which will focus on the historical period of 1985 – 2020”. Citings (ref ref indicated below) are not present in this rebuttal at this time due to the deadline to formulate this response. All references contained in this response are VERIFIABLE. With extended time and an opportunity to communicate directly with all identified potential sources as to to the intent to destroy this topic, updated quality information could be provided. I would strongly assert that this topic and connected Get Loose Crew topic article are highly relevant and that this detailed response stands as a statement that bolsters support to other information to be presented and to NOT DELETE this article at this time.Oldschoolmc (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldschoolmc: You really need to review Wikipedia's policies on notability, reliable sources and verifiability. These are the main reasons that a consensus is emerging in favor of deleting or redirecting these articles, and you aren't addressing these reasons. We aren't concerning ourselves with your opinions of the subject, or what the subject thinks. We are concerning ourselves with whether this article complies with Wikipedia policy, and so far, it clearly does not. Saying that something is true because other people have told you it is isn't reliable evidence. Simply saying that that sufficient source content exists without providing it to people who clearly can't find it is not helpful, because the unverifiable assertions of one editor aren't reliable evidence. Saying that there are mysteriously unreachable people who can vouch for the content in the article is hearsay, which isn't reliable evidence.

As for some of your other points:

The references to the EPP website and the Juno Awards are problems because they don't support the claims they are attached to. The EPP home page did not have any information about the chart mentioned in the article, and also counts as a primary source, which are generally unreliable. With the Juno mentions, we're not looking for evidence that another artist won a Juno, we're looking for evidence that "MC Shadow" collaborated with a Juno winner. You can't attribute a statement to a source that has no backing for that statement - that's simply gaming the system.
You mentioned "I have communicated to the subject via email and informed him as to what is happening with his Wikipedia page and the related topics." Collaborating with the subject(s) to achieve a specific outcome for their articles means you are editing with a conflict of interest. I will add that it's fine to do so as long as you are not being paid and that your edits comply with policy, but it's disingenuous to say that you don't have one, and then go and involve the subject in the process. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Wikipedia articles, especially biographies of living people, are intended to be entirely objective, and verifiable by third parties. The input of a subject doesn't count for anything unless it meets those criteria. —{Canuck lehead} 04:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Get Loose Crew: there's simply not enough here to pass WP:MUSICBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not here for editors with a clear conflict of interest to publish promotional original research on non notable subjects. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I simply cannot see enough independent, reliable, substantial sources for it to to be possible to write a proper article, let alone showing that these subjects pass WP:GNG. Even the Get Loose Crew article, arguably the most notable of the lot, is currently sourced to 4 private documents, a top 10 blog list, an interview, a talk show and a music pool. If we were to remove the unsourced or poorly sourced material there would basically be nothing left. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no mentions, nothing. There is no fans, nothing. No social media coverage. Dead band. scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMUSICIAN. If there is a redirect, it should definitely be a delete then redirect. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 holds that this is a promotional article with the coverage not demonstrating notability. ~ mazca ^talk 13:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Borovik[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly a WP:PROMO piece for a non-notable musician. KidAd talk 22:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we rid Wikipedia of overly promotional tripe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As article stands now 1745 UTC 6 November 2020, ref 1 doesn't link to anything about her, ref 2 Blocked to me (EU GDPR), ref 3 advert for a music festival, ref 4 self promotion site for bands, ref 5 college website advertising concert, Ref 6 Interview with her, Ref 7 IMDb, Ref 8 error 404, ref 9 Interview with her, ref 10 404 error, ref 11 another interview. JW 1961 Talk 17:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Appears to fail WP:NMUSICIAN at this time. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Victorian Amateur Football Association. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Box Hill North Football Club[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable Aussie rules football club. Has been tagged for notability since 2010, so its time to get a hearing on this. I'm not able to find any coverage about this besides advertisements, hiring notices, brief local database entries, and primary coverage from the team, affiliated groups, and its league. Not seeing how this passes WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victorian Amateur Football Association. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sportingflyer as an appropriate alternative to deletion which must be considered before deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victorian Amateur Football Association#District 4, searching is somewhat complicated by the far more prominent Box Hill Hawks, but the only thing that might possibly be SIGCOV I could find was this article: Box Hill North Football Club Enters First AFL Womens' Masters Competition in the Herald Sun, which is behind a paywall. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In particular, H pointed out two scholarly sources that have significant coverage of this topic. No one has rebutted that these sources are not reliable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MazaCoin[edit]

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

notability not established, all sources are unreliable. The sources by Tekobbe/McKnight and Alcantara/Dick are primary, so they cannot be cited. Mashable is a blog, it has covered dozens of blockchains, but it sources forums and twitter, without doing any independent research. Indian Country Today is local news, only covering MazaCoin because it was supposed to be for the tribe. Newsweek is the only reputable source, but a single source isn't enough to establish notability. There was a flurry of sources in 2014 (see the first AfD), but they are all just reporting on a single event, see e.g. The Telegraph. WaPo dedicates only a single sentence to MazaCoin. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well written article with references. PumpkinEditore (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Struck !vote by sock of User:Kingshowman. Favonian (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PumpkinEditore: Welcome to Wikipedia, PumpkinEditore! I explained my problems with the references in my nomination. Can you explain why these sources are reputable? I explained how e.g. Mashable is not doing any independent journalism, merely reporting whatever they saw on Twitter. The sources do not become reputable because you claim the article is well-written. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Mashable article isn't even an article - it's an inclusion of a video. The Newsweek article is post-2013, in their unreliable period. Indian Country Today is local coverage, but not enough to swing an article on, even with the two papers. There just isn't the detail here to show notability - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Newsweek_(2013-present) says "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis" and I don't see any issue with that article. Ҥ (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mashable has staff writers and editors so it's more than just a "blog." There's a written article in addition to the video.

Article in First Monday about Mazacoin.

Has significant coverage in Canadian Journal of Law and Society. ("Mazacoin" appears about 38 times, not including the references) Ҥ (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this article lacks enough sources a simple Google search brings up many more. I just added this Coindesk.com source. It amazes me how some editors quickly decide an article is not notable without doing any further searching. There are plenty of other sources, mainly from industry publications, which can be considered peered reviewed and notable. If I get a chance I will improve this article myself. There is also this article in The Verge. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC) Note: I also just found a Newsweek article and have added it. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Coindesk is a generally unreliable source, and is flagged as such at WP:RSP. It is not usable as evidence of notability, and doesn't belong in the article. Do you have solid RSes that clearly meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was agreed to be kept on its first 2 AfDs. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated in the AfDs and above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: you're just hinting at reliable sources without pointing them out. Tell me your favorite and I'll tell you why it is not sufficient. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Renee Kendall[edit]

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

I don't particularly want to delete this article, but I can't find any sources to help improve it and I'm at a complete and utter loss as to what else to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 19:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She seems to have self published one single book, which is completely unknown according to its amazon sales rank. Non-notable. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 19:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm afraid I agree, this one does not seem to be saveable. According to her Amazon author page, her real name is Brigitte Rene' (possibly René, but some American names do use an apostrophe or a following accent like that, so we should follow her preferred spelling). Unfortunately searching on that found me only her blog, last updated in January 2014, and nothing I can use to find grounds for notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to being notable. The fact that such a low quality article has existed for 11 years is distressing. LinkedIn is not a reliable source nor is a subjects own website and that is what we have. Also people are not default notable just because they are published writers of fiction. This even comes into play when someone is published by a 3rd-party, but when someone is self-published they are less likely to be notable. There are notable writers who self-publish some or all their work, but they are far outnumbered by non-notable writers who have been self-published.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. One published book rarely denotes notability. Over two dozen doesn't make me notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Actually, it seems likely that the two "keep"s are by the same person. Sandstein 18:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galimzhan Shahmardanovich Yessenov[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. References are passing mentions, non-rs, profile pages. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage- subject is peripheral to the topic in most of the references. 1292simon (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been updated with plenty of citations
Keep it looks like the article has in-depth coverage of the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.34.169 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't. Lets examine them:

Forbes is non-rs.

[1] Net worth page. No encyclopedic information and promotional.

[2] Talks briefly about his political connections. Reliable but not-indepth. Passing mention.

[3] An amalgamation of several other sources.

[4]] Self-published Profile. Fails WP:SPIP. Dependent source.

[5] Profile page. Not in-depth.

[6] Passing mention. Not in-depth

[7] No mention

Facebook. Non-RS.

[8] Announcement. Passing mention.

[9] Press-release.

[10] 404.

So the first 12 references, there is one which is really decent, which is insufficient for notability. Most of them are business announcements and run of the mill business news. scope_creep^Talk 15:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The reason that this is "no consensus" rather than "keep" is that it's not clear which of the cited sources are RS; Czechoslovakia at this time was a totalitarian dictatorship where freedom of the press did not exist. In the cswiki discussion, it seemed to have been deleted mostly due to lacking perceived importance, but this is less important on enwiki where we look for significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

František Bohdal[edit]

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

Deleted on cswiki per AfD, lacking notability. — Draceane ^talk_{contributions} 08:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the author of the article: There was a revision of the article - solving the pointed out problems, adding about 10 sources, which were not discussed at all in the past AfD, which prove the notability. Therefore, the removal of an article should have been evaluated by the entire community and should not be deleted in the opinion of a single administrator, as it happened on cswiki. The information in the article is verifiable (most sources have links where original articles can be read). The person has significant coverage in reliable articles (articles are archived in paper and online form in a scientific library, so the subject of the article is a permanent part of historical records). The person attracted press interest from the 1950s to the 1980s. He is the holder of two important state decorations, which were made by the President of the Republic on the proposal of the Government. He was a creative professional who brought improvements in the paper industry and the work of his department was awarded another state award for the entire team. At the same time, at the end of his working career, he was a local political figure who received significant press coverage. --Kopal.jiri (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this page were to be deleted, I think there are several decent merging options to preserve the most important information about him. He could be a part of an article about Czechoslovakian decorations and people who were awarded them? I do not think such an article exists on enwiki yet, but perhaps it should. (On that topic, I was not able to find the individual decorations from 1978 and 1982 online, are they only available in person? However, I can verify his team received the 1978 decoration – listed as "Kolektiv zaměstnanců oddělení ,,roto" v závodě Rudého práva ve Větřní".) As some people pointed out on cswiki before the deletion, his biography could be a valuable addition to the topic of pulp and paper industry, so if there was an article about the mill he worked in, perhaps he could have a section there, just like he does on cswiki? The paper mill's existence is only briefly mentioned on enwiki now. Ynneblack (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This newspaper article discusses the award For Outstanding Work (after fifty years from the publication of the article, it will be visible to everyone, now it can be viewed in the buildings of scientific libraries). The archive of the President's Office is gradually being processed and other lists of honors are being published. If someone requests information, the President's Office will provide information about the decorated person.--Kopal.jiri (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mamakiki[edit]

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

This film is notable because it has not received two reviews from well known independent critics. Zee5 does not count because they have distributed the film, so it is their own film. This issue is that a lack of sources exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reviews from The New Indian Express and LetsOTT exist, barring Zee5. So that's 2+ for sure by my count. Neutral Fan (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Neutral Fan and Donald. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been indef-blocked per WP:UPE, see user's talk page for further discussion of the matter. --Finngall ^talk 15:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reviews in multiple reliable sources so passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Koh[edit]

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

Per this AFD discussion and others where a footballer with 1 game in the Singaporean league was deleted, we have here a footballer with 2 games. 53 minutes in total, so a little more than half a game in actual game time. Lack of multiple significant in-depth sources as well. Geschichte (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - now that he is retired, he is unlikely to have any further notability; scrapes through WP:NFOOTY but does not pass WP:GNG; 2 passing mentions [11] [12] and one article focused on him [13] Spiderone 13:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear past consensus that failing GNG is more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any online significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very clear failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Presley[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BAND. Failure to launch scenario. scope_creep^Talk 09:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. The only conceivable alternative to deletion would be a redirect to Highway Sisters, but I've just taken a look at the band's page and nominated it for deletion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. Plenty of sources cited. It meets #1 & #4 of WP:MUSICBIO It definitely needs cleanup though. almaniacopedia (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC) — Almaniacopedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Very weak keep. The article seems to have sources that don't belong, such a Itunes, but she does have a history, and a couple of other verifiable sources. The majority does seem to be original research, however. LePanini (Talk) 17:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. KidAd talk 17:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep She seems notable, but I don't see sales figures for her albums, awards won, mentions in major media outlets. Serving in the military is neither here nor there, neither is being at an audition for American Idol. Sounds like she's almost a big star, but not yet. Perhaps a bit too early in her career for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:MUSICBIO - the fact that minor details like auditioning for American Idol and being mentioned in a magazine article are included suggested clutching at straws to establish notability, but the bar does not seem to be met. Melcous (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Meets WP:MUSICBIO This article meets the following guidelines of WP:MUSICBIO:

”Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2]“ (She has been the subject of MULTIPLE published works such as newspaper both online and print, magazine articles, etc)”

“ Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.”(References have been added to support this)

Musicians are considered notable if they meet one of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. She meets two, possibly more. It just seems that there has been a lot of deletion of the page without anyone actually looking for the references which were fairly easy to find with a google search. Open to feedback on references that I’ve added. American Idol isn’t really something that should be in there though. Maybe someone added it because she was on TV? RedDirtRedBird (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedDirtRedBird: You can only do one keep. scope_creep^Talk 22:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Sorry about that. I’ve deleted the previous one, now. 21:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedDirtRedBird: You need to provide evidence that she meets you criteria. Just stating that she meets it, doesn't really work. scope_creep^Talk 10:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The weight of notability is not just on those who !vote to keep the article. The same weight is applied to those who !vote to delete. Prove she is not notable. Don't just say she doesn't meet criteria. What criteria? How does she not meet criteria? Give examples of how one might meet criteria. If a BEFORE search was conducted then one should be able to argue the results of that search easily.The burden of proof is on both sides in an AfD. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-

I have to agree with Tsistunagiskathat. It seems people are more caught up on arguing to delete this page so that they can feel as thought they’ve won, whereas we should all just be trying to find references without bias. Almaniacopedia (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: The evidence is in the references on the page. Can you specify how to prove she meets the criteria further than that? I thought it would be pretty clear. Thanks

Keep per sources on the page: coverage in The Colorado Springs Gazette, The Loveland Reporter-Herald, The Stillwater News-Press and American Songwriter. There are a lot of blogs referenced in the article, but I think the print newspapers and magazine demonstrate some notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO and sources provided above by Toughpigs are all interviews which are not third-party sources. GSS ^💬 18:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not necessarily true about interviews by notable sources. Almaniacopedia (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020

Delete does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WG:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO and the references do not seem independent to me. Westminster88 (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not seeing much evidence toward why this article does not meet criteria. It is not sufficient to simply state that an article doesn’t meet criteria without showing that articles used are not independent. Read the definitions for all of these terms and you’ll see that many of the references listed are or could be considered notable sources (even interviews by notable sources). Almaniacopedia (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2020

Comment Lets examine the first 12 reference. I've removed the extensive external per WP:ELNO and the links to self-published sources like Medium per WP:NOT/WP:SPIP where anybody can post. Looking at the first 12 references.

[14]. This is self-published blog. There is no editorial control, so it is not valid references, it is Non-RS.

[15] This is her artist page on his A&R publishing site. By definition it can be used to establish WP:MUSICBIO.

[16] An announcement.

[17] An interview.

[18] An interview.

[19] A tiny album review. Not in-depth.

[20] A small profile page as she former coast guard women. Not in-depth.

[21] This is a blog. NON-RS. Fails WP:SPIP

[22] An announcement.

[23] Profile page on a self-hosted, a blog. Fails WP:SPIP

There is a duplicate. It doesn't add up to much. 2 Non-RS, 3 blogs, 2 announcements, 2 profiles, 2 interviews. So out of the 12 references and the rest which is clear case of WP:CITEKILL is 2 interviews, which are primary. There are no secondary sources, no social media coverage, no coverage, no international coverage. scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by social media coverage? How is social media coverage considered reputable while other sources such as American Songwriter are not, according to your comments. Please look at any celeb page on Wikipedia and you’ll see that most of the sources are based on a bio or interview. That’s how information is gained about anyone. The difference is that the sources are reputable. You can’t say that it’s not reputable simply because it is based on an interview or mentions part of a bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedDirtRedBird (talk • contribs) 20:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RedDirtRedBird: Please sign your comments by using ~~~~. The software will convert it into a full signature. For new artists it is indicative of a flourishing career. If they are young artists and want a career in the music industry then they must have a good social media presence as that is fans. All musicians work like that now. scope_creep^Talk 08:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Here is her social media. Again, just a simple search... => www.facebook.com/ameliapresleymusic ^[1] & www.instagram.com/ameliapresleymusic ^[2] I feel like I’m the only one doing any searches, honestly. As someone mentioned above. It’s not just on the “keep” voters to find this information. Also, thank you for helping me with signature. RedDirtRedBird (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I am going with the rationale both Scope_creep & Melcous have put forward thus far. Celestina007 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayout Intl[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 17:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: no independent coverage The Ace in Spades (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a PR piece, not an encyclopedia article. 1292simon (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Native advertising. Not even an attempt at being encyclopedic. Merely a profile page. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Wighton[edit]

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

Goofy kid fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Extensive significant coverage by reliable secondary sources (see references for some of the many sources). Has millions of views and subscribers on YouTube: not a "Goofy Kid". Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh please! "Extensive" coverage by "reliable" sources??? Listing multiple non-notable sources does not add up to a reliable source for one of a gazillion people who are able to set up a YouTube channel. I suspect this is an attempt at adding an autobiography to Wikipedia. Creator also tried to add the name to List of YouTubers. Fails WP:BIO. Sundayclose (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)'[reply]
- Last time I checked over a million subscribers and videos covered by major engineering sources is notable. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Last time I checked there was no Wikipedia policy or guideline stating the minimum number of subscribers to be considered notable. YouTube is fertile ground for unknown and untalented people with some video skills to grab subscribers. And the last time I checked, sources like socialblade.com, geekologie.com, irishnews.com, British Comedy Guide, Boing Boing, hackster.io, and mikeshouts.com were not notable "major engineering sources". Sundayclose (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about The Independent, Yahoo News, Hackster.io, the Verge?Ajshul 😀 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Independent, Yahoo News, and the Verge are not "major engineering sources". Even if there are a few citations to a reliable source that doesn't indicate notability. Reliable sources are required on Wikipedia, but reliable sources alone are not sufficient for notability. Everyone who has a YouTube video mentioned in a couple of sources does not pass the standards for WP:BIO. Sundayclose (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If you search his name on Google, you will see many results from many different reliable sources. I understand that subscribers doesn't represent notability, but he started a channel in March 2020 and has over a million subscribers and videos with over 10 million views and is covered by many different sources. Also, if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability, he follows the guidelines outlined there. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        In fact, if you DO look at Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability, you'll read this: "A frequent argument put forward for keeping the article is that a subject is notable because of their number of YouTube subscribers or the number of times their videos have been viewed. Consensus however is that this is an insufficient basis by which to establish notability." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, but subscriber count can be one indicator (along with the many different articles, reddit pages, etc. dedicated to him) that he "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." (WP:ENT) The many articles from reliable sources (see references or just search his name on Google to find them), and the content within them, has also proven that the videos on his channel is unique, innovative, and prolific. Therefore, he "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (WP:ENT). Ajshul 😀 (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You're beating a dead horse by repeating the same weak arguments repeatedly, and if you continue it is considered disruptive editing. Again you have provided no policy or guideline on "number of subscribers" that qualify for notability. And you again ignore the fact that reliable sources are required on Wikipedia but are not sufficient to establish notability. Google counts are meaningless. The number of hits depends largely on how the search is worded (for example, "Shane Wighton" as separate words produces vastly different results compared to "Shane Wighton" as a single phrase); and number of hits has no relationship to quality of hits. I can Google my name and get many thousands of hits, but that in no way makes me a notable topic for a Wikipedia article. You've made your case here. Please stop repeating it over and over. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Sundayclose but I'd add that it might be worth stepping back a little and taking stock of the inputs here and perhaps reviewing policy - especially that highlighted by Sundayclose above, but also stuff like WP:GNG which was my original issue here. That policy is the result of consensus in the community and, while it might seem restrictive in the short term, is designed (well, intended) to mark that which is truly notable in our society - not that which is notable right here, right now. You're looking at enduring notability, not today, not tomorrow. /endlecture/ But they're right. Leave the argument to others now - you've made your case (IMHO). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to clarify , I wasn't saying that the quantity of hits on Google mattered, just that when one searched his name up on Google, many reliable sources came up; I was unclear, I apologize. Nevertheless, you are making a very fair argument. Also, I appreciate the help... I'm relatively new as you may know and my understanding of what merits an article is obviously a little off. Thanks for the clear explanation above though. Much appreciated. Ajshul 😀 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the article is a bit of a stub, there are enough references in there to confirm notability, including from a non-niche publication such as The Independent. Han-Kwang (t) 22:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doing a BEFORE search I can find there is, perhaps, one reliable source, The Independent, in which the subject receives SIGCOV. I was unable to find any others. I think this falls under WP:TOOSOON. As a side note, calling another individual a "Goofy Kid" is reprehensible and offensive language. As editors here we are supposed to be largely neutral on any given topic. This "kids" engineered creations were worthy enough to be picked up by several media outlets and while that may not pass him off as notable, it shouldn't be discounted either. A year from now he may very well deserve an article because he is featured in some major media publications. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Shane Wighton meets WP:SIGCOV because of sustained coverage: Independent, Popular Mechanics, The Verge, Insider. Per WP:RSP, these sources, and the others cited on the page, are generally reliable. 2605:B100:119:50DC:6865:567C:6B36:5A46 (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)— 2605:B100:119:50DC:6865:567C:6B36:5A46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note to closer: This is an SPA. Sundayclose (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know why it seems this way. I've made a bunch of edits, but for some reason it logs them each from different IP addresses. 2605:B100:119:CE9E:5929:EEC3:D10B:7A4 (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest you create an account to prevent that from happening. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs a little clean-up and/or expansion. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG with sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson[edit]

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

I am a little unsure with this one, but on the balance of things think it fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per WP:NAUTHOR. Author of two notable books—reviews follow. Also, here's his CV for convenience. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why Jury Duty Matters (reviews: [24]; [25]; [26])
- The Rise of Big Data Policing (reviews: doi:10.3798/tia.1937-0237.1926; [27]).
  - Changed to regular old keep per David Eppstein's !vote below. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the individual appears to have been asked to comment on legal issues by several major media outlets. But I definitely don't feel strongly if others disagree as I could see a lot of law professors meeting this criteria...DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Agree with above users. BlueD954 (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I added to the article nine published reviews of one book and four of the other, including the five already listed by AleatoryPonderings. I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2016 box office number-one films in Taipei[edit]

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

Per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2017 box office number-one films in Taiwan, the source situation is questionable. It's also exactly zero precedence on Wikipedia to have lists about how films grossed in cities. Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other identical Taipei lists for different years; please be sure to bundle them with this nomination as your argument affects them all equally and they should not be listed separately. postdlf (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bundling: –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- List of 2017 box office number-one films in Taipei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of 2018 box office number-one films in Taipei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of 2019 box office number-one films in Taipei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of 2020 box office number-one films in Taipei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep Taiwan’s film industry has the problem of "box office transparency". Only Taiwan’s capital, Taipei, always has complete disclosure of box office information. Therefore, the film industry always uses Taipei box office to evaluate the box office performance of the entire Taiwan market. It is precisely because of problem of box office transparency resulting in the city box office list appears. Regarding the lack of sources, it can be revised from the Chinese version of individual articles, and there is absolutely no problem with the source situation about Taipei box office. There is a problem with Taiwan box office' s sources, not Taipei box office' s. Please don't mix them up. --寒吉 (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But why should Taipei as the only city in the world have such a list? Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand 寒吉 correctly, it replaces the figure for all of Taiwan because of data problems for the rest of the country. If this is the case, I would allow it. 寒吉, please confirm! gidonb (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --寒吉 (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This is instead, not an addition to, national lists. As confirmed above, national lists would have data problems. gidonb (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the information from 寒吉 above. // Timothy :: talk 11:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Healthcare Management[edit]

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

I can't really find any non-primary sources ABOUT this journal, much less in any detail. The GNG requires MULTIPLE reliable third party sources to cover a subject for it to be deemed notable. I'm not seeing how an impact factor alone determines notability and don't see it listed in our guidelines as automatically conferring notability. I can't find any specific Notability guideline that deals with this kind of publication... WP:BOOKS does not seem to. Journal is non-notable per WP guidelines. OrgoneBox (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This is only a passing mention, this includes more content about it, but is primary. This provides its impact rating as compared to similar journals, and suggests that it's not particularly influential in its field. This does include a bit of information. On the whole, while I'm not particularly familiar with this subject matter, I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:GNG. Willing to reconsider if new/better information comes to light, but leaning weak delete at this point. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking comment, as I'm not familiar enough with academic journals to really be a judge of this. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Hog Farm, I feel like I'm in the same boat whenever these questions come up. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NJOURNALS with flying colours, indexed in multiple selective databases and bibliographic services (e.g. Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this passes NJOURNALS. Scopus says that it's (currently) a middle-quintile journal in its field, which NJOURNALS indicates is considered "influential". I do wonder how much of an article we could realistically write with the available sources, though. Maybe writing about academic journals requires access to the sort of publications that only research librarians normally buy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not a part of our Notability guideline or any policy. The basis for notability on Wikipedia is outlined at WP:N and mopre succintly at Wikipedia:SIGCOV. Essays don't take precendence over guidelines. OrgoneBox (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:1Q Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1Q is another essay. Essays have not met the consensus threshold to become a guideline, so insisting an essay trumps our own notability guideline flies in the face of process. We operate on WP:N, not agglomerations of essays. ♟♙ (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails all applicable notability guidelines. ♟♙ (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A Scopus-indexed ~65-year old journal, ranking 13/31 in the category of 'Leadership and Management' (and with other respectable rankings in other categories, which used to be higher in the past) more than passes notability criteria. It's literally been cited tens of thousands of times. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of that is anywhere in our Notability guideline. Essays have not met the consensus threshold to become a guideline, so insisting an essay trumps our own notability guideline flies in the face of process. We operate on WP:N, not whatever some person wrote that some people like. Maybe NJOURNALS should become part of the notability guideline, but he time to get that done was before this article was written and submitted for AfD, not during a deletion discussion. Please see also the second bullet point under "When participating, please consider the following:" in WP:DISCUSSAFD. Citing an essay and citation counts isn't a rationale to keep until those are a part of the guildeline, reach through consensus. ♟♙ (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is irrelevant, see WP:1Q. You want independent reliable sources saying this journal is important? You have them with both Scopus and Journal Citation Reports saying this is an important journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wrong. 1Q is yet another essay. And Database listings are not WP:RS. ♟♙ (talk)
        Again, irrelevant. And under what weird reasoning at Scopus and Journal Citation Reports, by far the two most respected and trusted citation analytics databases/publications, not considered reliable sources? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument is that throwing out a couple of essays determines notability versus guidelines and policy which state the opposite? How silly. Index listings can't be used to determine notability much in the same way google hits and phone books can't. Hey, I'm in 10 phone books, I'm notable! Every single keep here flies in the face of our own guidelines and makes me question how many of you actually know our guidelines.♟♙ (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Those 'listings' are selective, being included in them is like being included in the Forbes 500. It means that the journal is considered relevant and that scholars are paying attention to you, and likewise you are ranked within that listing. These are not equivalent to phonebook listings, which are comprehensive listings. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Headbomb--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NJOURNALS isn't an official guideline or policy, but it is sensible advice, and I see no reason not to follow that advice here. Our documentation of the topic the journal covers is better for having an article on the journal. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NJOURNALS and is a respectable and weighty enough serial to merit an article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Alexbrn and Headbomb and others. Whispyhistory (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep What nonsense, even to suggest that a 60-year-old peer-reviewed journal by a major publishing house as reputable as Wolters Kluwer could be anything other than notable. And if this technically does fail the WP notability rules, which I doubt, then that in and of itself proves the rules really are not fit for purpose. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Clearly notable. ♟♙ (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World University Karate Championships[edit]

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

What makes this competition notable? Sources are all WP:PRIMARY and my WP:BEFORE fails to find anything better. It is not a hoax, but neither is Wikiepdia a sport almanac... or is it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on what you said, many world championships articles use primary sources which are official event website's documents. For example see 2018 World Wrestling Championships resources and notability. MrInfo2012 Talk 09:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if those other events are badly sourced and cannot be improved, they need to be deleted as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another word for notability is famous and this karate competition is internationally famous. However I do not believe the people that won listed on the results table are notable based on a single credible source. Australianblackbelt (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I really struggled to find secondary sources; these are probably the best out there [28] [29] [30]. Probably scrapes through GNG Spiderone 11:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A sufficient number of notable karateka have won medals at this competition and it does appear that an article for this competition is justified (i.e., it appears to be relevant for many in the sport of karate). Note also that easily a few red links there can be turned into articles as karate is underrepresented in en.wiki (which, I agree, doesn't indicate notability but just for awareness, it's not that the links are red because the individuals are not notable). - Simeon (talk)
Comment. This is an international competition that was held in ten different countries, WP:BEFORE was not done seeing as user Spiderone has found independent third part sources. I believe this is a good article which is original interesting and valuable to wikipedia readers lets not over look that. Australianblackbelt (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. This competition is responsible for making people notable and here are some credible third party news sources, there are many sources in each of the 10 countries this competition has been held in.
https://www.francebleu.fr/emissions/france-bleu-besancon-sports/besancon/france-bleu-besancon-sports-67
https://actu.fr/bourgogne-franche-comte/dole_39198/la-doloise-laura-sivert-championne-monde-karate-par-equipe_19536919.html
https://www.sportmag.fr/karate/ledito-de-laura-sivert/
https://www.oasport.it/2018/07/karate-mondiali-universitari-2018-francesco-donofrio-oro-terryana-donofrio-argento-le-medaglie-azzurre-sono-una-questione-di-famiglia-bronzo-per-busato-ed-el-sharaby2/
https://www.fijlkam.it/karate/news-karate/2469-terryana-e-francesco-d-onofrio-medaglie-d-oro-al-k1-world-youth-cup.html
https://www.gazzetta.it/fighting/karate/19-08-2018/karate-fratelli-d-onofrio-tetto-mondiale-universitario-290297687753.shtml

Very credible association website

https://www.eusa.eu/
https://results.eusa.eu/index.php?page=person&id=57600&ln=en

It is surprising why someone would not consider this international competition not to be notable. Australianblackbelt (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. Jaye Gold[edit]

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

Promotional BLP of a spiritual teacher who uses indirect methods to facilitate the removal of obstacles to the innate goodness in every human. Sourced to his own works and other unreliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Obviously self-promotional piece, fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Majority of refs are to works by the subject. David notMD (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alter? Contributor here. To clarify if I may, I am not "prompted," "fed," or promoting. The subject, who is interested neither in finding students nor anyone's money, is not self-promoting. This should be clear from the article. [Do the words “spiritual teacher” lead to this assumption?] Can anyone help me consider what perhaps to delete to save the article? The secondary sources are mainly interviews, and the website of the nonprofit org. that Gold founded. Are these all considered unreliable? Should I have the interviews transcribed in order to better cite them as secondary source material? Yes, I’ve read all the articles and guidelines. Don't know where to post this...Pls. delete these comments if this is not the place for them and direct me elsewhere -- unless it's a done deal. Thank you for your thoughts / assistance. Onganymede (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what we need to demonstrate notability of a subject is multiple references to reliable independent sources. These can be newspapers, books etc. But they must be by independent third parties. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onganymede, the independent sources you need exclude anything by Gold or from his website or from ccns-inc.org or interviews of Gold—in other words none of the sources you are now using is useful. —teb728 t c 12:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Draftify - Promotion for socially desirable purposes is still promotion. Wikipedia serves its own social purpose of compiling human knowledge and does not serve other non-profits. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DRAFTIFY:
We're biting a new editor here, folks. Don't delete their hard work, it's not a self-promo piece, move it to draft. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 03:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable independent sources suggesting that there is a valid topic here which could be rewritten? If not, there is no point in draftifying because the article can’t be developed.Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Although I stated Delete earlier, the creator is changing the draft to address criticism primarily having to do with now knowing to not reference Gold for this article about Gold. I agree with Draftify to allow time to work on it. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Message received and research done. I've learned alot and found alot. Please take a look and advise. (Not sure of protocol for this page so, winging it with "comment." Thank you.Onganymede (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: @David notMD: @Robert McClenon: in the light of the complete rewrite by @Onganymede: what is your view now? The sourcing is now entirely different. These may be WP:RIS and the article subject may now be a WP:GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At this point I am not prepared to change my !vote to Keep. It doesn't look like it satisfies WP:GNG as currently written. I will change my statement above to Draftify. I would suggest that the originator further rework to focus on author notability rather than general. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Torn between draftify and delete. The refs are still remarkably weak. Four to blogs at medium.com, and some formatted so that the link is to the publication but not the article that was about Gold. David notMD (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clearly non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have redone most of the original article and have, I believe, addressed EveryThing suggested/required. I welcome your final comments. I ask that before any next Delete comment, the editor/s be so kind as to look at least briefly at the Projects page of the nonprofit, ccns-inc.org/service-projects/ (preferably not on a smart phone). I understand the site cannot be referenced for the article's subject, but notability is not always documented in web-linked articles. If Wikipedia insists it be, so be it. Thanks for your comments and help in this process. Onganymede (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked at the page 'Onganymede' linked for a moment. I still don't think this article complies with the WP:GNG. Xelygon (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article creator has done a tremendous amount of work to improve it, and to support the new version with third party sources. It’s an enormous improvement. I’m still not sure if the subject is notable, but if not it’s a much nearer miss than it was a week ago. I’d suggest relisting to allow time for wider consensus, given the amount that has been changed. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article creator has removed the blog refs and added other refs. David notMD (talk) 22:57, 7 Njovember 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I concur with relisting. McClenon mobile (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Congratulations to the author on improving the article, but still as far as far as I can see Gold is an unremarkable author and an unremarkable spiritual teacher. He is not significant enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Although CCNS may be a worthy organization, founding it does not make Gold notable by Wikipedia standards. —teb728 t c 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn with no deletion votes. (non-admin closure) Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mifathul Ikhsan[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: hasn't yet played in a professional match. Captain Calm (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - appears to have made six league appearances but not sure if he passes WP:GNG but I believe it would be an NFOOTY pass Spiderone 13:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - young player at start of career, meets WP:NFOOTBALL with 6 appearances (to date), as such, and as such I am willing to assume there are non-English language sources out there. Giant Snowman 13:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTY (and I've added the Soccerway link to the page now), a quick BEFORE search revealed just about enough coverage for a weak GNG pass as well, as Giant says, young player so plenty of chances to get more coverage later Spiderone 14:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I did do a quick BEFORE search, but clearly not well enough. Sorry! Captain Calm (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep since the nominator withdrew. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayuli Jemide[edit]

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

Page created by seeming COI/SPA editor, who removed the prior PROD tag. Fails GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable subject fails to satisfy WP:ANYBIO and WP:GEN with possible UPE. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. This is my userpage^{[citation needed]}^{and this is my talk page^{[citation needed]}} 13:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of these puffy lawyers articles appearing. Non-notable. Doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 18:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. Note the persistent removals of the AfD template by — guess who? — the article's creator. Bishonen | tålk 18:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folarin Balogun[edit]

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

Recently deleted by AFD (three days ago!) and now re-created, but I don't think it's eligible for G4 as he has made his first senior appearance. However, he still fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as his 16 minute cameo was against a team not from a fully-professional league). I suggest this is deleted and SALTed to prevent re-creation until such time as he is notable, at which point it can be easily restored - but draftifying is also fine if there is consensus for that. Giant Snowman 13:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - pinging those who took part in the first AFD - @Fram, ArsenalFan700, SportingFlyer, and Spiderone:. Giant Snowman 09:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep two appearances for the Arsenal first team, now there is loads of sources on the web for this player for GNG after his Europa league appearance. Also I bet he will be in the squad again for the Molde game. Govvy (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: nope, only one appearance, in the Europa League against Dundalk. If/when he plays against FPL team again it can be restored - WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 09:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I had to re-read the article, I only did a quick scan and looked at the Europa BBC report. 16 minutes first team football! not much play, sounds like a good prospect know. I would of moved this to draft space on it's recreation. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/draftify - could well meet GNG/NFOOTY in the future but equally may not. I see no problem with this being sent to draft space along with the hundreds of other footballers with potential for future notability Spiderone 11:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Could meet notabiliy in near future. So I think better to keep in draftspace.WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Though his in-game appearance was minimal, there's now been enough articles written on him where I think he marginally passes WP:GNG covering his appearance. There's a good mount of recentism, but he's been linked to million-dollar transfers to places like Brentford or Sheffield United in the press, and I think there's enough out there to expand the article. This isn't an instance where someone played a few minutes against Inter Zaprešić in Round 24 of the 1.HNL ten years ago and then never did again - this is the case of a young prospect playing for one of the top clubs in Europe in the group stage of a major continental competition. If he fails to make the grade, he's either going to play elsewhere where he'll qualify, or there will be coverage about how he didn't make it - that's the level of skill we're discussing here. That being said, I don't oppose a draftify until he plays again, which should be relatively soon. SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: where are all these sources which indicate "significant coverage" of the player, to meet GNG? Giant Snowman 15:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[31] [32] appear to be good ones related to his debut (not too familiar with the Express though.) There's a bit of other coverage from Metro, but I'm not sure what qualifies as a tabloid and what's an okay source honestly. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: there's plenty of good sources out there about this player, if you just google him. And plenty of other of pages of young players who have done far less in their career.

Express is akin to Daily Mail, and never heard of 'Sporting News', so neither of those look reliable. Metro might be OK. Giant Snowman 10:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting News is one of the oldest North American sports magazines. It may be a reprint of a goal.com article, but I have no issues with that publication. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Not only do they have a Europa League appearance in 2020–21 UEFA Europa League group stage, their appearance was for Arsenal F.C. - the highest ranked team in the entire 158-team tournament - and currently the 11th-ranked team in the world. While this might not 100% technically meet NFOOTBALL, to nominate this article for deletion, with a lot of recent media coverage like this and the Sporting News article, is the ultimate in Wikilawyering. It also seems to be both perverse and self-serving as the nominator has a draft of this player in their userspace at User:GiantSnowman/Folarin Balogun (despite being asked in the past to put Drafts in draftspace). Also recommend to Restore Edit History and Topic-ban User:GiantSnowman from creating AFDs for subjects that exist in their draftspace. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like me to be topic banned then please raise at WP:ANI. Giant Snowman 19:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should also be blocked for deleting attempts to improve the article combined with false claims of lack of attribution. That you are more concerned about your attribution here, than improving Wikipedia, really makes clear your motive here to delete the article. As a result, this should be a Speedy Keep as a WP:POINTy nomination. No good comes from ANI which is a bizarre process. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You copied content from their user sandbox, and they reverted your copying with attribution concerns and this started an edit war. If GiantSnowman had reverted original content I would be concerned but I don't have an issue with them reverting information copied over from their userspace if they don't think it's ready. This also isn't eligible for a speedy keep, and I don't think it's wikilawyering - it's a recreation of a very recently deleted article that might now meet notability guidelines (I think it does) but does not meet the SNG to the "letter of the law." It's really not worth arguing over - I'd just vote "keep" and let the process play out, and since GiantSnowman objected to your copy, make original edits to the article if you'd like. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems to be just enough coverage to justify an article. And I fail to see why users are so competitive about creating articles - if an article fails our notability guidelines, it should be deleted regardless of whether the nominator already had a draft in their userspace. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that mean User:Microwave Anarchist that the nominator shouldn't be making the nomination, and leaving it to others? I have no stake in this, or awareness of the player, before commenting at this AFD. Meanwhile the nominator is actually reverting attempts to improve the article! Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I don't have a problem with them making the nomination, and I don't believe there are guidelines against it. Also they removed that content for copyright reasons, not because they didn't want to improve the article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright reasons? First I've heard - tell me more User:Microwave Anarchist. On my talk page it was all about them, noting that it was a violation of WP:Copying within Wikipedia (which is false, as that's about unattributed stuff, and I explicitly attributed them in the edit summary). Nfitz (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is required for copyright, and what you did was probably insufficient. If the article is kept, a WP:HISTMERGE is probably appropriate. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how if my edits stood, and there was a history merge, how there wouldn't be more than enough for copyright. Either way it's moot, I've simply expanded it from scratch. Nfitz (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added 13 references, some meet GNG. Not sure how it failed AFD the first time, or why the closing editor didn't, as suggested, draftify it. Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The manager of Arsenal has suggested that he will keep giving him first-team appearances soon^[3], so it seems that, IF this currently meets deletion criteria due to lack of coverage by RS and is deleted/draftified, it'll just be recreated again with many more of those coming in a week or two. It seems overtly pedantic to delete this again, even more so with the sources added by u:Nfitz. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 14:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At worst maybe it should be draftifed but it’s just barely good for GNG and will only get better. SK2242 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EQRIC[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO, at the moment the only chart success he's had has been on iTunes and Spotify. Can't find significant coverage of him in WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions. Captain Calm (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Captain Calm (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. The musician's numbers of hits in the various social media services are nice but not incredibly noteworthy when compared to everyone else, and some of the songs/videos touted in the article are in conjunction with other musicians. As an individual, this guy has not yet received enough significant and reliable music media coverage. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 15:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes, and he was also aired on well known radio shows too and one of his remix went viral (how i got to know him), it got like 100M+ Streams on TikTok and 2M+ on YouTube. He is currently featured on Spotify's one of the biggest playlist too. btw, my friend also helped me write this article. btw, If you think the article isn't eligible, please let me know and you can put it to draft. Anyways, i still strongly believe he's famous tho. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D3FAULTX8 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hey, any updates? Thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.58.235 (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Doomsdayer520. This music collaborator's minimal product — plenty in a table but unreferenced — fronted by others doesn't for me achieve notability for the subject, and is not written about in multiple reliable publications, but only in blogs, some self-referencing, and tracklist sites. Multi-views as a collaborator on Youtube and Spotify don't I think cut it... if these views were written about in multiple reliable nationally known sources there might be a case. 'Famous?' (above), i.e. part of most people's or Canadians' consciousness, certainly not... how would we then rate these notables: Persons of National Historic Significance. No, he's not notable enough for an article here. Acabashi (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
verified on Instagram consider as notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.77.182 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anyone can start an Instagram or other social media page, often not under their own name, so unreliable and/or self-serving. Acabashi (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solitude, Dominance, Tragedy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The coverage that I found of this album appears to mostly consist of passing mentions or not in-depth about the album itself, thus not satisfying the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." of criterion #1. There has been no evidence that it charted to pass #2 either, with sverigetopplistan returning no results TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC); updated 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable album by a notable band. Heiko Gerber (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Heiko Gerber. Notable album by a notable band. Same goes for the rest of their albums which are also nominated for deletion. This guy has really gotten something against Evergrey, I tell y'all. :) He nominated their members and the band themselves for deletion. I mean, I am not a huge fan of them either (they are ok but I don't find them special) but they are notable for WP! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Heiko Gerber, GhostDestroyer100, and Geschichte: Rationale updated. I am working through expanding and closing as appropriate. I assure you that I have nothing against the group, have never heard their music, or even knew they existed until last night when stumbling across numerous sub-par articles lacking independent notability. I am coming from a totally neutral prospective. In hindsight, I agree the Evergrey article nomination was incorrect and that I should have WP:BOLDly redirected the albums to Evergrey discography as they (for most part, from ones I nominated) lack sufficient coverage to warrant their own independent Wikipedia articles. The nomination of the main article was the reason that I did not redirect as if that one had closed as "delete", it would have automatically deleted these, which I felt they had too much of a revision history to be deleted automatically. I am unopposed to redirecting this and the others nominated. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: I was just joking about you having something against Evergrey. That's why the smiley face is there. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all albums to Evergrey discography. The track listings can be condensed into collapsed templates there. BD2412 T 19:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Heiko Gerber. I found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] and [38]. With these, the album is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Superastig: Please see the below
1. hardwired magazine does not cover the album in significant depth nor does Hardwired magazine appear a reliable source
2. metal-archives appears to be a user generated review, thus not doing anything for notability. It is also mentioned explicitly at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal#External links and WP:ALBUMAVOID as an unreliable source.
3. metal.de (as a whole) is a source that GhostDestroyer100 and I are sort of on the fence about. However, at one paragraph saying the album has a "lot of depth" (and not much more) it is hardly substantial (non-trivial) coverage.
4. sputnikmusic appears user generated (prominent "USER" disclaimer beside the reviewer's username, Kris/KJ), which does nothing for notability is not RS per WP:MUSICRS as it doesn't have a clearly identifiable tag stating it is either a staff or emeritus review.
5. metal-template Though the site itself is of potentially questionable notability (also not listed at WP:RSP), this is the first source with any depth whatsoever
6. whiplash.net is an interesting one, but whiplash.net does not exist as an article and it is not listed at WP:RSP. This calls its reliability into question for me.
--TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC); amend based on new info 04:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna Kantanen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes WP:NSKATE because she won her country's senior national championship. - Juju (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSKATE is about figure skating, and she is a speed skater.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speed skating is a predominantly amateur sport; surely was in the early 1990s anyway. Then, the general clause would be that competiting on the highest level of the sport is sufficient for inclusion. The very highest level would be the Olympics, but we also need inclusion policies for the many years between Olympics. In my eyes, 2 European Championship starts and 16 World Cup outings between 1989 and 1994 are what stands out in her career. (Not the national championhsips.) Granted, her various outings probably did not make several headlines as such, but her best World Cup finish being 20th, this level of achievement seems pertinent enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was one of the best Finnish speed skaters in her era. Unfortunately, most of the secondary sources of Finland of that era are not online. But already from an official history ofthe Finnish speed skating union document we can read about her several times (see the pdf here). Also, in one of the main Finnish newspapers that has content online, >50 with her could be found: see here. However you nead to register to read the full articles. With the limited online sources of that era, we can already say she meets WP:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" SportsOlympic (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. oncamera _{(talk page)} 17:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above (in particular per SportsOlympic). /Julle (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Entrepreneurship Foundation[edit]

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

I tried but can't find anything that satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH and as pointed out by Piotrus in their prod rational current sources seem insufficient to justify this article passing WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 07:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 07:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 07:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Covert advertising and simply not notable per WP:NORG. Java Hurricane 10:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NORG and GNG. In Polish I see few minor passing mentions in media, one in a book... far from even being borderline. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rom Shrestha[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, fails WP:ANYBIO, fails WP:NCRIC. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Under-19 appearances don't meet WP:NCRIC, and doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Joseph2302. Please could the article creator take a look at WP:CRIN before creating further cricket biographies. StickyWicket (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable player of cricket.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Indy Lights season[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a stats directory per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. ~~I would redirect this to a team page per the guidance, but that guidance isn't applicable here.~~ TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NSEASONS is of no relevance here as this article is not about the season of a single team. A7V2 (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catch. Amended to reflect WP:NSPORTSEVENT, which says basically the same thing. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at the navigation point at the bottom of the article and chose 1977 USAC Mini-Indy Series season and 2019 Indy Lights then randomly picked a few others. They appear to all be written as stat sheets with little or no prose included. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no valid basis for deleting this article. Not to WP:OTHERSTUFF but seasons of virtually every other professional motorsports league has articles. Why were these four seasons singled out? Because the nom thought the body was a bit light - that can be fixed and is not a reason to delete. -Drdisque (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for article cleanup, however, this is just a collection of stats with no prose to speak of outside of the lede. A "bit light" is a gross understatement. I pointed out that this issue isn't just found in these four seasons but in all the seasons from 1977 to 2020, which was reportedly cancelled but hasn't been deleted as an article yet. Not saying I am for deletion but I am pointing out that the nominator isn't wrong about their assertion in regards to this nomination or the others proposed. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this one of the four seasons that are been sighted out as this motorsport season was essentially the second tier of CART until 2002 where IndyCar picked that up. Really the page needs to be modernized instead of being deleted. HawkAussie (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not convinced that WP:NSPORTSEVENT is relevant either since these are season articles not just a single event (not that I feel it is relevant to even individual races but that is not under discussion here). It's unreasonable to expect there to be lots of online sources for racing from before the internet took off, but there are books and news articles which unfortunately I don't have access to. As others say, these articles may be undersourced, but they are still notable. A7V2 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Indy Lights season[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a stats directory per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. ~~I would redirect this to a team page per the guidance, but that guidance isn't applicable here.~~ TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992 Indy Lights season, WP:NSEASONS is of no relevance here as this article is not about the season of a single team, so I'm unsure what the deletion rationale is for this article. A7V2 (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catch. Amended to reflect WP:NSPORTSEVENT, which says basically the same thing. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no valid basis for deleting this article. Not to WP:OTHERSTUFF but seasons of virtually every other professional motorsports league has articles. Why were these four seasons singled out? Because the nom thought the body was a bit light - that can be fixed and is not a reason to delete. -Drdisque (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is this one of the four seasons that are been sighted out as this motorsport season was essentially the second tier of CART until 2002 where IndyCar picked that up. Really the page needs to be modernized instead of being deleted. HawkAussie (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not convinced that WP:NSPORTSEVENT is relevant either since these are season articles not just a single event (not that I feel it is relevant to even individual races but that is not under discussion here). It's unreasonable to expect there to be lots of online sources for racing from before the internet took off, but there are books and news articles which unfortunately I don't have access to. As others say, these articles may be undersourced, but they are still notable. A7V2 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Indy Lights season[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a stats directory per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. ~~I would redirect this to a team page per the guidance, but that guidance isn't applicable here.~~ TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992 Indy Lights season, WP:NSEASONS is of no relevance here as this article is not about the season of a single team, so I'm unsure what the deletion rationale is for this article. A7V2 (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@A7V2: Thanks for the catch. Amended to reflect WP:NSPORTSEVENT, which says basically the same thing. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no valid basis for deleting this article. Not to WP:OTHERSTUFF but seasons of virtually every other professional motorsports league has articles. Why were these four seasons singled out? Because the nom thought the body was a bit light - that can be fixed and is not a reason to delete. -Drdisque (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is this one of the four seasons that are been sighted out as this motorsport season was essentially the second tier of CART until 2002 where IndyCar picked that up. Really the page needs to be modernized instead of being deleted. HawkAussie (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not convinced that WP:NSPORTSEVENT is relevant either since these are season articles not just a single event (not that I feel it is relevant to even individual races but that is not under discussion here). It's unreasonable to expect there to be lots of online sources for racing from before the internet took off, but there are books and news articles which unfortunately I don't have access to. As others say, these articles may be undersourced, but they are still notable. A7V2 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Indy Lights season[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a stats directory per WP:NSPORTSEVENT. ~~I would redirect this to a team page per the guidance, but that guidance isn't applicable here.~~ TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992 Indy Lights season, WP:NSEASONS is of no relevance here as this article is not about the season of a single team, so I'm unsure what the deletion rationale is for this article. A7V2 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catch. Amended to reflect WP:NSPORTSEVENT, which says basically the same thing. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no valid basis for deleting this article. Not to WP:OTHERSTUFF but seasons of virtually every other professional motorsports league has articles. Why were these four seasons singled out? Because the nom thought the body was a bit light - that can be fixed and is not a reason to delete. -Drdisque (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is this one of the four seasons that are been sighted out as this motorsport season was essentially the second tier of CART until 2002 where IndyCar picked that up. Really the page needs to be modernized instead of being deleted. HawkAussie (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not convinced that WP:NSPORTSEVENT is relevant either since these are season articles not just a single event (not that I feel it is relevant to even individual races but that is not under discussion here). It's unreasonable to expect there to be lots of online sources for racing from before the internet took off, but there are books and news articles which unfortunately I don't have access to. As others say, these articles may be undersourced, but they are still notable. A7V2 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Quevedo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sources are links to videos or performances or broken links.
edit: I would just like to clarify further. I looked through the citations and there are about two or three acceptable ones; most are merely performance videos, performance schedules, event listings, YouTube videos, or just completely irrelevant. Nikolaih^☎️📖 04:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I won’t pretend to understand Swedish better than I do, but at this time I don’t see notability. Trillfendi (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the sweeping description of the sources as either video performances or broken links. While some sources are weak, that's not true for all of them. There were a couple of broken links among the ones I checked out – I rewrote those references pointing to the paper editions instead, using Mediearkivet (Retriever) which collects Swedish newspaper articles. Others are paywalled, but just like we can reference books, we can reference material that's not freely accessible, thus widening access to that content. /Julle (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After improvements by Julle. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references may need an overhaul, but I disagree with the complaint about video links. One Youtube video was pointed to via an external link. The article is about a musician and I believe giving an example of a performance is more relevant than including a picture of the subject. One editor later incorporated that link into the reference list. Many sources are from Swedish daily newspapers. When I wrote the original Swedish article I thought those references would be more than enough. Quite many Wikipedia articles with almost no sources remain up year after year so I am quite surprised that this article is proposed for deletion. I would like to see a clarification of which "about two or three" references are considered acceptable by the proposer, and which are not, are there Swedish newspapers that publish irrelevant articles? Just for information, Swedish is my native language. Unoholmer (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that many articles have almost no sources remain up for a long time and I think that is unacceptable. I won't go through all the sources but so many of them are just links to concerts, performances, videos, none of which are acceptable as references. As I said, a few are fine. Besides the references, she fails WP:BIO which is the primary concern. Nikolaih^☎️📖 22:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaih I see far more than two or three acceptable sources, so it's difficult to understand more exactly which ones you're referring to. For example, there are a number of Swedish newspaper articles that are paywalled or not in the online edition (but accessible through Mediearkivet). Do you count these? /Julle (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those that I don't have access to I consider are fine. However, very few of the sources actually support her notability. (Having the sources are okay but they do not help an argument for WP:BIO). Just looking through the first couple dozen, I know for sure that sources 2,5,6,9,10,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,21,22,... do not support notability. Overall I don't believe this article is yet ready to be included. Nikolaih^☎️📖 05:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as Swedish newspapers already in the article to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO which is fundamentally determined by sourcing, so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gabriella Quevedo a famous person worthy of an encyclopedia entry? Sorry I don't know how to vote for or against.

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

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

The result was merge to Smoking in Canada. There is a consensus to cover this topic in the article smoking in Canada for now. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking cessation programs in Canada[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, unnecessary sub-article, has been a stub for over a decade with no attempt to improve. Will always be incomplete. Win98fan (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nomination provides no policy-based reason for deletion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while not technically meeting WP:SKCRIT 1, that is not a sound argument for deletion and is best avoided. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Invalid argument for deletion. Please see WP:NOTCLEANUP. Java Hurricane 10:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not speedy keep, merge to smoking in Canada. "Smoking in Canada" is a part of a worldwide series, "Smoking cessation programs in ..." is not. The smoking in Canada article is infinitely better than the one discussed here, and primarily deals with smoking bans, so fits the smoking cessation topic well. Geschichte (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smoking in Canada, which seems like a logical destination. A valid topic for a section in the parent article, and it would fit in well with the information there. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As nom I agree with the idea of merging with Smoking in Canada. Win98fan (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smoking in Canada, no need for this to be split from parent article. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Deletion rationale doesn't cut it, but there is no functional need for this as a separate article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smoking in Canada Spudlace (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top-earning Filipino celebrities[edit]

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

Unreferenced, original research, outdated, and not notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only reference indicated (which is not in inline citation) dates back to 2009 (not 2018 as it is claimed) - ftp://ftp.bir.gov.ph/webadmin1/pdf/top_500_indiv_2009.pdf (look: Top 500 indiv 2009). The link (which is in incorrect address) cannot be accessed, even if I fixed it to http://bir.gov.ph/webadmin1/pdf/top_500_indiv_2009.pdf JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and User:JWilz12345. If ever this is kept for improvement, this would always end up having WP:OR. HiwilmsTalk 08:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No way this meets WP:NLIST. Java Hurricane 10:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too many problems with this article. This is my userpage^{[citation needed]}^{and this is my talk page^{[citation needed]}} 13:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability and impossible to keep the info up to date, reliable and informative Spiderone 14:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source (dead link) --Serv181920 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTCATALOG--ERAMnc 14:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Emperork (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Bharathi[edit]

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

Not notable as a director or an actor. Fails WP: Nactor#1. He has played the lead role in one film Naanga and supporting roles in seven other films. There are no other notable roles. This is WP: Too soon unless he plays the lead role again. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough.--Serv181920 (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few minor roles, nothing significant for him. VocalIndia (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been indef-blocked per WP:UPE, see user's talk page for further discussion of the matter. --Finngall ^talk 15:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ www.facebook.com/ameliapresleymusic
^ www.Instagram.com/ameliapresleymusic
^ https://www.arsenal.com/news/arteta-willock-pepe-and-balogun

[1] www.facebook.com/ameliapresleymusic

[2] www.Instagram.com/ameliapresleymusic

[3] ttps://www.arsenal.com/news/arteta-willock-pepe-and-balogun

[1]

[2]

[3]