Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 11

Guide to deletion

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 21:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

FASTER: 100 Ways to Improve Your Digital Life

FASTER: 100 Ways to Improve Your Digital Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable book by a self-proclaimed "BLACK HAT hacker". No notable awards, nor best seller. Eatcha (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eatcha (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eatcha (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eatcha (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there any problem with the nomination ? Do I have to do anything else? // Eatcha (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 23:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• SandstEin and BuIdhe, ThANks for yOur reply ! // Eatcha (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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) buidhe 00:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques Razafindranazy

Jean-Jacques Razafindranazy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP1E - sources cited and WP:BEFORE search show notability is due to death. No award for his career. We can't have an article for doctor died due to covid. Störm (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. I suspect that there may be quite a few similar pages created for individuals who have died in this way (see also Peg Broadband below), and this may warrant a Tea House discussion. For the moment, we should be led by WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. First off, the nomination is not even wrong - no effort has been made to add the sources in the French article. There are TV and newspaper articles that can be used as sources. Secondly, the nomination seems to reek of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and unconscious bias (Wikipedia has been rightly accused of inherent bias); deleting this article will cause us great harm and unnecessary controversy (we've kept a Chinese doctor's article who is only famous for fighting Corona virus, but not an African doctor who did the same thing?). Finally the nomination outright ignores the excellent sourcing; nowhere does English Wikipedia require sources only to be in English. NOTMEMORIAL does not override WP:GNG. Premiere can mean "first" or "best known" in French, and it's used in both senses in the French sources. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 23:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - per Bearian. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 16:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearian.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep , per above and with the French sources it is notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I believe both WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E applies to this case, I prefer this to be deleted but would wait for response by Bearian. I cannot find anything extraordinary done by this doctor that millions of other health care workers have not done. The death was sad and unfortunate, but it remains to be seen if it was impactful. Bearian 3 users have commented according to your keep vote but we should note that many doctors have died across the world and almost always their death is covered in detail. If we keep this then we will have to keep each and every article of doctor because they died with COVID and were covered by media. The Chinese doctor did a lot of notable things, like raising voice against censorship/activism, other then dying, that made him notable. Take an example of Usama Riaz he was a similar case but he had raised his voice for PPE (activism) and working conditions for doctor that gave him coverage in social media and his death caused outrage. He also received the government award that made him notable. Just his death would not have made him eligible for an article. Razafindranazy's French article is also being discussed for notability and it seems it is heading for deletionCedix (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

(1) There are three French-language sources that talk to the impact his work and death had on the French Republic's response (numbered 7, 8, and 9 as of this moment). These include a statement by that nation's health minister, and two other articles about how he advocated for the equivalent of PPE before he died lead to changes in protocols after he died. (2) Again, I can not stress enough how bad this looks for the Wikimedia Foundation. Millions of people are checking the List_of_deaths_due_to_coronavirus_disease_2019 page every day. It will be a public relations disaster if we start to delete selectively some articles but keep others when the only difference is the skin color or type of gonad of the dead human being. To be blunt, ignore all rules when it comes to the best thing for the Foundation. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Bearian I have carefully read all the three sources [1] [2] [3] that you linked. Sadly, I did not find any line/phrase that talk about the extraordinary "impact of his work" or anything along those lines. Can you please quote those lines. I disagree that this looks bad for WMF. We cannot possibly create a WP:MEMORIAL for every dead doctor. If there is an encyclopedic information only then should an article be kept, (see my examples above). "This doctor died in the line of work" is the only encyclopedic info. At best it should be mentioned in "COVID in France" article. If this is kept on such flimsy grounds, then I am going to cite this discussion and create a few hundred articles on Dead doctors and Nurses, because almost all of those great, brave and wonderful people have been covered in detail in their respective national media for their supreme sacrifice in the line of duty. Cedix (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I would not oppose that, as long as their articles pass WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep In France, this doctor is part and parcel of the history related to this worldwide pandemic for several reasons. Firstly, he was the very first therapist who died of Covid-19 during—and because of—his professional practice. Secondly, his death triggered a wave of indignation within the medical profession, bringing to light the scandal of the lack of means—lack of masks, visors and prophylactic equipment—to protect doctors and nurses who unwittingly exposed themselves to the ravages of the virus. Thirdly, as a result of the above, the disappearance of this E.R. doc. has highlighted the existence of many flaws in the health system prevailing in France as well as in other countries. In view of the above, his death and the consequences that followed were echoed by the Minister of Health in France, Olivier Véran, as well as by the President of the Association of Emergency Physicians, Patrick Pelloux, in addition to the former French Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin. Furthermore, there are numerous individually targeted references, punctuated by the triggering events that followed. Their nominative contents are directly and specifically associated with the name of this doctor, given that those writings and reports have been relayed in the plural by a plethora of secondary “focused” and “centered” sources—mostly reliable and emanating from reputable national journalistic or television media—among which are France Inter → [4], RTL → [5], France Info → [6], BFM TV → [7], L’Express → [8], La Première → [9], Paris Match → [10], etc. In light of the above, this cannot be considered, therefore, as an anecdotic tragic death among, alas, so many other victims. On the contrary, it is much rather a major, fundamental and symbolically crucial event in the epistemological genesis of the chronological emergence of which this trying period is regrettably marred. The death of this hospital practitioner is thus at the implicit origin of a national awareness which, by extension, could no longer conceal a scathing reality by seeking, as was the case until then, to caulk it under a bushel of pretences. — euphonie ^(talk) 21:18 / 23:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC) / 00:18, 01:26 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Scott Horton (radio host)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Scott Horton (radio host)
• Articles for deletion/Scott Horton (radio host) (2nd nomination)

Scott Horton (radio host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Trying this again because the reviewing tool is acting up. The article was recently recreated despite the fact the previous AfD was clearly gauged as "redirect". I determined a second AfD might prove dissuasive for future attempts at creation (perhaps salting would be convenient). The sources listed for this one are all his own publications. Trying to find any independent sources about him proved futile, as all I found were more articles by him in the antiwar conspiracy website. His books don't appear to be notable either, so he clearly fails both general notability and the authorship criteria. PK650 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete (as previous AfD nominator). While I appreciate Esoteric10's efforts to add citations to this article, and it's in somewhat better shape that it was at the time of the previous AfD, the references added aren't sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. As far as I can tell there's only one independent source cited in the article ([11]), a brief blurb containing a single sentence discussing Horton. Like the nominator I've (still) been unable to find other sources. (I don't think the redirect that resulted from the last AfD is useful – the target doesn't contain much information about Horton, and the disambiguated title is an unlikely search term.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I am happy to do some work to further improve this article. I see the source issue and wanted to try and address a few items. As a new user I hope you can bear with me as I explore the many pages of guidelines. What I found: Philip Giraldi discussing Scott, his book Fool's Errand and his interview show and reputation.([12]), Tom Jackson of The Sandusky Register covering Scott's book ([13]), the denver libertarian party reviewing his book as well ([14]). I've also found a documentary that he is in ([15]) that I am searching for coverage of. i would also point out that the blurb about Scott winning The Best of Austin ([16]) may be short, but it does show he is an award winning interviewer for his coverage of The Iraq War. I don't believe the length diminishes that.Fancylogin21 (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment After much reading of the guidelines I want to point out that I work with the subject and his Institute, and that I did not intend nor intend to break any guidelines on CoI editing. I did make very minor edits like dates & punctuation in the article before researching some potential sources and digging much deeper into the guidelines including CoI editing. I hope however my familiarity with the subject and research can lead to more quality sources.Fancylogin21 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• You're right that the length of the piece doesn't diminish the significance of the award, but the length or brevity of an item like that is useful for determining whether Horton has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, which is what we're ultimately looking for. (Also, the Denver Libertarian Party doesn't seem to exist; what you linked to is the personal blog of a libertarian from Denver. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree about the Denver Libertarian. My mix up, spent too much time reading last night. I have more links that I need to review before posting to avoid this type of mistake. I used strikethrough to note it was included in error. I'll be vetting more links this evening or tomorrow with fresh eyes.Fancylogin21 (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• I've looked over a few more sources on Scott that help support WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. From being a speaker in the 2019 Ron Paul Symposium ([17]), hosted by Mises Institute, and including other prominent anti-war Libertarians. Being invited by LP PA to speak about his book, which was covered by CSPAN ([18]), An interview with Washington Babylon covering Scott's book and 2020 election thoughts([19]), and coverage of his book in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs([20]). There is certainly adequate information available to improve the article in this discussion.Fancylogin21 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note: This !vote comes from an editor with a COI. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 02:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I believe the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. I've found some independent reviews of the subject's book in widely circulated publications ([21]), and also found the subject featured on CSPAN's Book TV, and a few other outlets.([22])([23])([24]). There are also 100+ amazon reviews by verified purchasers of the book. His book actually seems to meet multiple criteria for notability itself (WP:BK). I also found an example of the Subject publicly debating Bill Kristol, a well known foreign policy expert and political analyst([25]). The subject is clearly regarded as an important figure among his peers and within the area of American foreign policy. Subject also has 20k+ twitter followers, which of course doesn't establish notability on its own, but shows that he seems to have a substantial following. While I agree with Arms & Hearts that citations in the article are sparse, I have found quite a few additional sources that do establish notability, which should probably be added to the article. Definite keep.Esoteric10 (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Per analysis done by Fancylogin21 and Esoteric10, the latter stating additional sources. Article is good enough to pass both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 23:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: I've been swinging my opinion with keep or delete, and choose delete. Almost all of the sources appear to be associated with Scott Horton, and are not independent of him. I've done a Scott Horton" radio host, and I get no independent results. If it fails WP:GNG, it's not notable. I would've choose keep because it can (or will) be improved as shown above and a currently a COI edit request with the proposed addition of sources. But once again, the sources are not independent of the subject. However, cCitations are just for verification of statements, and you only need enough citations to fully verify a statement. The proposed additions are citation overkill, which is excessive turning the purpose of citations from verifiability to notability. With my statement, as of right now with my argument knocking out all of the keep !votes, it's 2 delete, 0 keep. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 02:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC); edited 02:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• The above KEEP votes are for WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Consider these independent sources: ([26]), ([27]), ([28]) which support WP:AUTHOR Combined with a short but important award mention ([29]) which is enough for him to be mentioned in another article (Antiwar.com) builds on his WP:GNG. Scott is notable for more than 1 event (Best of Austin, and his Book coverage - including varying mentions of his significant body of work). Links showing Scott's contributions may not be necessary, and that seems like something worth discussing on the Talk page. Search engines award his frequent show releases and guest appearances very generously. However, Independent sources do exist, are listed here and in talk, and support the previous allowable KEEP votes. Fancylogin21 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Empathy Test

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

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

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. This isn't even attempting a notability claim that could even be measured against NMUSIC at all, basically just documenting the fact that the band and their music exist, and its only references are the band's own self-published website about themselves and a social networking profile on last.fm, which are not notability-supporting sources. As always, every band is not automatically notable enough for an article just because their own self-published web presence offers technical verification that they exist -- they need to have a notability claim that passes NMUSIC, and reliable source coverage about them in real media to support it, for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I found PopMatters and Clash refs, but still not enough... Caro7200 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I found and added more refs anatorpedo (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You haven't found or added good references. I'm seeing a lot of blogs, PR kits, social networking and other such primary sources, and not a lot of evidence of notability-supporting media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Added to the bio, reworked the citations and formatting. Now multiple refs from multiple sources anatorpedo (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with what counts as a reliable source for Wikipedia content and what doesn't. Your list of options, for example, does not include Facebook, Twitter, IndieGogo, YouTube or blogs. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Reworded bio and changed sources anatorpedo (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 23:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - The article's creator has made an admirable effort to shore up the sources, but I'm afraid the nominator is correct about the shortage of reliable secondary sources. The group has a couple of friendly interview articles in the electronic music press ([30], [31]), but the article remains dependent on typical social media and industry listings, plus sources about things that are only tangentially associated with the group. Unfortunately they simply have not yet been noticed by the reliable music media, which is required per WP:NBAND. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per Doomsdayer520. The group has not gained significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Scott Jeffers Traveler

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

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

Fails the GNG and MUSIC criteria quite clearly. Could not find a single source beyond his own websites or social media channels. This is reflected by the citations used in the article, which are all unreliable/insignificant. PK650 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: while he's clearly a prolific musician, none of the references demonstrate notability, and I couldn't find any other sources which would. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep First of all I apologize: this will be a little long. Several considerations. You are right, Scott Jeffers Traveler is a prolific musician, he composed 14+ albums; he is worthy of attention and notice as a musician/composer/performer, especially since he is working in very different genres. He is also artist of movies listed on IMDb. His music is a fusion of ethnic music and Rock, which is not mainstream in the US. His albums are in the catalog of Periferic Records, which is ranked in the five best progressive rock label in Europe (Piacképes zene a periférián), it is notable to be listed in the catalog of Periferic Records.
  
  • He is a returning star of festivals specializing in very different genres; and being invited back to the following festivals is notable.
    • the Las Noches de las Luminarias, which is an annual Nov/Dec holiday festival with an average of fifty thousand visitors yearly (Desert Botanical Garden 2018 Annual Report). On the timeline of the festival's 40 year anniversary publication, the year of 2010 is a milestone as the first year Traveler (the band of Scott Jeffers Traveler) played there: and he is invited back ever since, which is notable.
    • 2013-2016, he was invited to return yearly to the Fethiye International World Music Festival, Turkey to play with musicians from all over the world
    • The Scottish Games / Highland Games in Phoenix has 20000 visitors yearly (eventcrazy.com); it is notable that Scott Jeffers Traveler has been invited there five times since 2015
  • Regarding the references I used: all of sources are used / accepted in wikipedia articles
    • all references are third party, independent publications about music: I did not use Scott Jeffers Traveler's own sources (web site, social media) as reference - I did not include information without being able to locate to source.
    • Voyage Phoenix is a popular magazine, which has Q&A interviews and other music-related publications, used as reference in wikipedia: e.g.Craig Bohmler, Fervor Records; thus, it should be accepted its Scott Jeffers Traveler interview as well.
    • Lady Obscure Magazine is a women founded / run independent online music magazine which e.g. interviewed Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull as well in a similar format to the Scott Jeffers Traveler Q&A. Ladyobscure magazin is an accepted reference source on wiki: e.g. Antonia Vai, Signum Regis.
    • Turkey's For Life is an independent website based in Fethiye with local & travel news. The entry I included describes the sheer excitement when the International World Music Festival's headliner Scott Jeffers Traveler walked into the bar with his band.... and soon was on stage in an impromptu session. He was notable not because he was listed as a performer; but because he was invited back to the annual festival: as a returning star-performer. It is a witness' testimony, who happens to be a skilled writer. Turkey's for Life has been accepted as reference on wikipedia, e.g. Dolmuş.
    • Fethiye Times is an English language online news site in Fethiye, Turkey. In the reference I added the ... The Scott Jeffers Traveler along with his band Traveler has also been featured in Fethiye Times during the years, when the Fethiye World Music Festival took place. Fethiye Times is an accepted reference source on wikipedia, e.g.Camel Wrestling, Vivalda Dula.
    • Blabbermouth.net is a wikipedia article: "Blabbermouth.net is described by the London Free Press as a "reliable industry and fan site"," "it is dedicated to heavy metal and hard rock news". In the reference I used Scott Jeffers Traveler is interviewed by David Ellefson. Blabbermouth.net interviews and reviews are accepted source reference on wikipedia.
  • Based on the above Scott Jeffers Traveler should be considered notable. Wiki supports diversity and this artist is an underground artist. I accept that the article needs improvement, this is why it is labeled START. Would you consider adding Find sources notice notice and let the Scott Jeffers Traveler wiki article stay and being improved? He is a remarkable artist who deserves to be in the encyclopedia. And I for sure would like to be around and contribute to wiki as my life permits. Thank you for your input and for reading this all the way till this point. Pinterma1000szer (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep Does fail both GNG and music notability criteria, but IMO does have a good amount of independent coverage.North8000 (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 23:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• The changed the title of the main section in the Scott Jeffers Traveler article to "Music Career (2000-present)" and re-wrote to improve this section.
  • I utilized the content of the cited references to add more detail to this section
  • I added new references
  • Thank you for your feedback on the changes and for your time to improve this article. I will add a photograph in a week to satisfy the WikiProject Biography request.Pinterma1000szer (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)pinterma1000szer
• Keep: Hmmmm North8000-a bit long winded (LOL) but you won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• I added a photo and a musical artist info box. Thank you! Pinterma1000szer (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)pinterma1000szer

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

1933–34 EAHL season

1933–34 EAHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Season articles for the Eastern Amateur Hockey League do not pass WP:GNG. Coverage found in newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com is WP:ROUTINE and not sufficient to merit individiual season articles. The nomination is a follow-up to the deletion of Template:Eastern Hockey League seasons. The same rationale applies here. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I am also nominating 1934–35 EAHL season for the same reasons as above. Flibirigit (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

1934–35 EAHL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Heck, the team articles are badly in need of reliable sources, never mind individual season articles for what was (at the time) the lowest ranked professional league around. Ravenswing 03:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ravenswing: I'm not sure this league was even "professional" in the '30s; it was the Eastern Amateur Hockey League after all. Yosemiter (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, it definitely wasn't. Turned into the EHL, hence my comment. Ravenswing 22:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete I have no access to read the full content of the articles I see on the archives, however, the titles of the articles do seem on the routine side. Without significant coverage outside of simple records and stats, I have to lean on the "Fails to meet GNG" side of this discussion. I would prefer if some the more generic records are added with sources to the EHL/EAHL page, like a simple list of champions by season, before we have a bunch of unsourced, and possibly unreliable, stats pages for each season. Yosemiter (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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 as nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Stu Aberdeen

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

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

I'm a bit on the fence. Mr. Aberdeen was the subject of an obituary by the AP which was published in the NYT -- it was rather short, but it may be considered SIGCOV. However, I cannot find any other source that could potentially be considered SIGCOV, thereby failing WP:GNG. Subject also fails WP:NCOLLATH. MrClog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. While he may not have a lot of coverage, that could be due to the fact that he died suddenly at the age of 43 in 1979. Despite his relatively short coaching tenure, he is still notable. He was the head coach at an NCAA Division I university, he won a national championship at Acadia, the Coach of the Year Award in Canada is named after him, and there are several articles about his time as an assistant at Tennessee. Eknight2012 (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Eknight2012: Thanks for your comment. A few notes from me: (1) Being a NCAA Division I coach is not sufficient per WP:NCOLLATH, and neither is the national award. (2) Where is your source for the Coach of the Year award? I can't find it online. (3) Unfortunately, if someone dies young, s/he isn't exempt from the general notability guideline. --MrClog (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Here is confirmation of the USports (Canadian version of the NCAA) National Coach of the Year being named in his honor. I will add some more references later and weigh in once I am done. There isn’t much on line, but his whole life/career were pre-internet. I searched him on newspapers.com and there are literally thousands of articles. I just need to sift through them to pull the significant stuff out of the bare mentions. Rikster2 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Keep since references have been added – Sabbatino (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 16:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep – I added several sources to the article and there are a number of others I could have added but the article would need significant fleshing out to fit them in. But bottom line is, he meets WP:GNG. Here is what I found out about Aberdeen in my research yesterday: He was highly successful at Acadia when the program had not been successful prior, he served as the Canadian mens national team for a while in the 60s, as an assistant at Tennessee he was responsible for some of the biggest recruiting wins in school history (Bernard King, Ernie Grunfeld, Reggie Johnson, etc.), he actually coached the Vols through most of his last season there as head coach Mears was sick, he had landed two of the biggest recruits in Marshall history (including future NBA player Leo Rautins as a transfer) the month before his death (they subsequently went elsewhere after he died) and that he was mentor for several assistant coaches who went on to be head coaches. I think his career and life ending pre-internet is why it’s hard to find sources via Google search. As an aside, it’s been my experience that NCAA division I head basketball coaches tend to meet GNG so I wonder if WP:NCOLLATH should be tweaked. Rikster2 (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Rikster2. Clearly passes GNG. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG per the work done by Rikster2 above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sourcing and improvements to the article provided by Rikster2. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). Thanks for adding the newspaper sources via Newspapers.com (I should request access to Newspapers.com too, much more newspapers then newspaperarchive.com). --MrClog (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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 delete as the product of an LTA. If someone wants to take responsibility for the content I am happy to send it to them. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ali Morshedi (chess player)

Ali Morshedi (chess player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication in the article that the subject is notable as a chess player. The chess titles run Grandmaster (chess), International Master, FIDE Master, with FIDE Master being the lowest. FMs are much better chess players than most, but are not at the top so normally FM is not considered notable enough in itself for a biography unless the player is distinguished as a chess prodigy, chess writer or theoretician or has won a significant tournament or match. Quale (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Played in an chess player game per

1. FIDE
2. chess-db
3. chess.com
4. 365chess
5. chesstempo

thus meeting WP:CHESS.66ali66 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• I understand your point, but I don't see it that way. Those sources are really directory entries, and don't say anything significant about the subject. Inclusion in a chess games database that attempts to include every recorded game played doesn't indicate notability. I should have mentioned in the nomination that in April 2020 there are about 8127 FIDE Masters worldwide. There are about 1714 Grandmasters alive today, and at least some members of WP:CHESS don't consider the GM title to be automatically notable. That's not to mention the 3874 International Masters that are in between the FM and GM title. Quale (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Quale: So delete these other articles as well.

1. Herbert Avram
2. Boris Baczynsky
3. Newell W. Banks

66ali66 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NCHESS. The article is wildly inaccurate, claiming he became a Grandmaster in 2012, which is untrue, and that he is ranked 777 in the world (in fact he is ranked 777 among active players in the Americas. P-K3 (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. No conventional reliable sources are cited. In addition to the howlers mentioned above, the article claims that he is a "great chess" master, where "great chess" redirects to Tamerlane chess, but no cited source supports that he is a master at Tamerlane chess, or that he even plays Tamerlane chess, or that Tamerlane chess even has masters. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The articles about Herbert Avram, Boris Baczynsky, and Newell Banks are irrelevant to the discussion of Ali Morshedi. Every article stands or falls on its own merit. If an editor thinks that any of those three articles is insufficiently notable, he may propose it for deletion. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is of course the other stuff exists argument, which has never been accepted as valid in deletion discussions. That said, the essay is often misused to dismiss arguments derived from precedent and consensus. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem to meet the bar for notability, even by the strictly unofficial WP:NCHESS standards. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Play in an chess player game WP:CHESS,WP:BIO.Joueur d'échecs (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who the original sockmaster is but given the overlap of articles edited this looks very much like a sock of the globally blocked user User:اناهیتا_معظمی. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Edit: Previous socks of this editor are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/مهیار_مهرنیا/Archive, and there have been more recently. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• KeepWP:CHESS.Nabav145 (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • To those new users showing up to say keep: this is not a vote. New users showing up just to say keep makes it more likely the article will be deleted because it's about strength of arguments (and lots of people signing up just to say keep makes it seem like the arguments to keep are so poor that people must resort to meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry). If you really want the article to be kept, link to reliable sources which provide in-depth coverage of this person. That's all that really matters. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• speedy delete yet another stupid hoax by an xwiki lta. Praxidicae (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Vigneshwaran Palanisamy

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

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

This Wikipedia page that does not express why this actor is notable. The references are inadequate and do not go into depth about him. The first reference barely mention him while the last reference does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamilMirchi (talk • contribs)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Haven't found any reliable sources. The one's mentioned in the article are all inappropriate. Less Unless (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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 21:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Little Dogs on the Prairie

Little Dogs on the Prairie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable TV series. The PROD was removed by a single-edit user with no rationale for keeping the article. Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - No indication the show is in any way notable. No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources provided, none found. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is unsourced, and there is no coverage found, apart from one non-independent site. Less Unless (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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 Davis McCaughey#Television. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Discovering the Bible

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

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

Reliable sources or not, I highly doubt a small handful of TV guide listings count as “significant” coverage. If that were true, almost every TV show ever broadcast would be notable. Dronebogus (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete – per WP:GNG. All mentions are trivial. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect I cannot find anything to demonstrate the notability of the subject, or even anything more than already referenced. However, it is I suggest an import piece of content, it being part of the introduction of television to Australia. Hence it should remain as a search term, it being relevent to Australian history, culture, and television medium. Hence redirect to Davis McCaughey#Television where I have merged the content already, rather than delete. Aoziwe (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect as above due to lack of sources. If some good sources are found please ping me, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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 21:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Tanaza

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tanaza
• Articles for deletion/Tanaza (2nd nomination)

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

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

A promotional PR article that would have to be wholly rewritten to conform to Wiki's standards. All sourcing is either WP:ROUTINE or comes from press releases and blackhat SEO sites. Attempted to draftify the article to allow it to incubate, but page creator almost immediately published it back. So here we are. Not convinced they pass WP:NCORP, while googling for news hits brings back results, it's just page after page of press releases. At best this would have to be slashed and burned till there is little to nothing left. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - refbombing with churnalism and press releases do not a notable company make. Separately, I'm curious about what exactly a "USA TRADEMARK PATENT" is. creffett (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm the editor of the article. I contest this notice: I've not any type of economic according with Tanaza in order to write this page. The page has references to Facebook, Il Sole 24 Ore, Yahoo Finance and two sources to USA TRADEMARK PATENTS!!!! There lots of article from Wi-Fi sector newspapers.

The article talks about what Tanaza is and what it does. It's not a press release! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Papavero (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It was a wonderful early effort, I hope you continue to improve Wikipedia! However, in the future so your hard work isn't deleted for notability, I would recommend you spend a few hours picking through WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Also, this page will look far more notable if you could help find third party newspaper coverage that isn't in English? 67.243.20.177 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was only able to find the two sources below to help, and so think at this point Delete would be sensible unless a merge of some sort would work. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Tanaza collaborates with Internet Service Providers on WiFi projects", Marina Santos Martos, Silicon.co (November 14, 2017)
• "Italians Take Up The Torch To Ignite Their Own Tech Startup Scene", Mike Butcher, TechCrunch (September 30, 2012)

• Delete I agree, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - confirmed paid-for spam. MER-C 13:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac15 19:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't Tell Mama (novel)

Don't Tell Mama (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Second proposed deletion, now through AFD. The article still fails WP:NB. All the references were previously primary sources/self-published. Now the page creator has updated the article with three secondary sources, one from Bulgarian National Radio website and two from HUGE.BG. The latter of which likely fails WP:RS. I'll remind again that this same page was created on Bulgarian Wikipedia (see bg:Не казвай на мама) and was speedy deleted for similar reasons (sources / advertisting). I do not believe the article can be improved to meet WP:NB. I grieve in stereo (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft delete as it has been dePRODded previously
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Weak delete. The Bulgarian National Radio piece is substantial coverage in what I assume is a reliable source, but that's only one source. The HUGE.bg piece is an interview and the article cites nothing else that establishes notability. Sandstein 21:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Only 1 clear RS and no other evidence of notability. Oddly enough, the promotional stunt of re-creating the painting may be more notable than the book it was promoting. Either way, this fails on WP:SIGCOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with the above arguments. The book simply doesn't appear to be really notable. The Bulgarian National Radio piece is nice and all, but that's not enough to build a whole page on, I think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Tone 19:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Impulse Jee

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

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

Non-notable cram school. Sources are all primary or directory listings; no substantial, independent coverage. Promotional as written, and references do not exist that could allow a non-promotional article to be built. (PROD declined without explanation.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the nominator that this article should be deleted. Sources in article are poor, and searching I can't find better ones.--Hippeus (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I could not also find other news articles about the school. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. This is a cram school with three branches. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Tone 19:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashiq Hussain

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

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

Looks a promotional profile. To me, it fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. Störm (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete There's no case for passing WP:PROF on his scientific accomplishments (perhaps three papers with decent citation numbers, but nothing outstanding for a high-cited field, and a near-total dropoff after that). I can't find anything that would substantiate a general wiki-notability pass either. Humdrum case of Wikipedia being (ab)used as a LinkedIn alternative. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE Dr. Hussain was the first neuroscientist to discover relation of Neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer, Parkinson, ALS) with olfactory system. in the field of neuroscience He has deciphered the neuronal interactions within the olfactory system for aging associated with neurodegeneration. He is currently serving as Vice President in Molecular Health AG, a sister company of CureVac, that is working on the COVID-19 vaccine and the company that president Trump tried to buy. He is most relevant in today´s era of COVID-19. Dr. Hussain is world renowned figure in the field of healthcare and technology.[32][33][34][35][36][37]

Dr. Hussain is a world renowned neuroscientist and VP at Molecular Health, sister company of CureVac that is making COVID-19 vaccine. President Trump tried to buy CuraVac, so is the importance of work that Dr. Hussain is leading now. Dr. Hussain is a powerful voice and authority on healthcare and COVID-19 in today´s world. I find even the suggestion to delete his page offensive and to some extent racist. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:521:2E40:807B:3693:B968:9D27 (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• It is clear that the olfactory sensory pathway is pathologically affected in Alzheimer's disease, wrote Esiri and Wilcock in 1984. In comparison with closely matched controls, patients with Parkinson's disease had reduced scores in tests of odor detection and qualitative discrimination, wrote Ward, Hess, and Caine in 1983. So, no. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• It was a theory but was proven by Dr.Hussain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:521:2e40:b85f:f67:8ba9:543 (talk • contribs) — 2a02:908:521:2e40:b85f:f67:8ba9:543 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• It's not "a theory" when it was literally observed in clinical studies. XOR'easter (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, The citation data in Google Scholar gives him the h-index of 4, which is low for any field, especially a field like neuroscience. Nothing else indicates passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete and thanks to 2A02:908 for making the argument that much easier by providing us with a spurious, blatantly promotional argument with a bevy of sources that don't show how he meets WP:N or WP:NPROF. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete With only 3 first-author papers with a decent number of citations, does not meet WP:N or WP:NPROF Freeranging intellect (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Not enough third-party coverage to warrant a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet NPROF. Promotional bio. Natureium (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, does not prove notability, looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE Dr. Hussain was the FIRST scientist to investigate that Alzheimer, Parkinson and ALS first symptom is loss of olfactory senses. He is also a keynote speaker and writer in forbes in the digital healthcare and a media personality. [38][39][40][41][42][43]

• DO NOT DELETE Dr. Hussain was the FIRST scientist to discover the fear inducing receptors in humans (https://www.pnas.org/content/110/48/19579) that lead to the discovery of treatment for the neurodegenerative diseases.

• DO NOT DELETE Dr. Hussain is not working in academia anymore so the point on citation and papers etc are NOT RELEVANT anymore, he is Vice President at Molecular Health (https://www.molecularhealth.com/en/2019/10/01/appointment-of-ashiq-khan/) and a leader on the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:908:521:2e40:b85f:f67:8ba9:543 (talk • contribs) — 2a02:908:521:2e40:b85f:f67:8ba9:543 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• You only need to say "do not delete" once; repeating it does not make your case stronger. Nor does recycling the same links we have already seen and found wanting. Your claim about "fear inducing receptors in humans" points to a study of zebrafish. As of today, 86 different COVID-19 vaccines are under development. XOR'easter (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• I know and i am repeating because you are stuck with the papers and ignoring all other aspects of Dr. Hussain's contribution to society. May be there are 86 companies working on COVID-19 but how many are successful? only CureVac that is working under the leadership of Dr. Hussain. Fee free to delete the page because he is Muslim and you have Islamophobia but at least be reasonable or try at least. It a shame that the value of a scientist is decided by some `contributors to wikipedia´.

• Drop the accusations of bigotry because his beliefs are not a factor in us arguing for deletion. And you're still not helping your case at all by repeating the same useless argument that has been rejected as against policy in more ways than one. I think it's time to ask: What is your relationship with Hussain? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

References

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kbabej (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

House of Laanui

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

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

The two sources on this page are historical info, not sources on the contemporary House of Laanui. No RS could be found that state this family is notable. Kbabej (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

References from the State of Hawaii Cultural Surveys of Traditional and Historical Accounts about the House of Laanui were added as well as notable books were the House of Laanui derives from to help save the page.

• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We usually keep houses of royalty, mostly because as this one they are actually notable, but often just to avoid the zillions of stubs about every single possible heir, so this acts as a cheap redirect target. This is, I understand, the lesser of two evils. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Tone 19:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Jitendra Kumar Barnwal

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Ran for parliament (finished outside of the top five candidates) and state legislature in 2019 and did not win either election and is not notable independent of his 2019 campaigns. GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this features neither a credible claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy, nor sufficient sourcing to demonstrate a credible reason why his candidacy could be deemed a special case of significantly greater notability than other people's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. As per news report, candidate doesn't comes under top 5 candidates in Parliament election. but, In the Jarmundi constituency election He was in top 5 candidates list. See the proof @Times of India wesite. --Raaj Tilak (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Finishing in the top 5 is not part of our notability standards for politicians. He has to win the election, not just run in it, to derive notability from an election — if he didn't win, the only other way he gets an article is if you can show that he was already notable enough for an article for other reasons before he even ran at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It doesn't matter where he placed if he didn't win. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete people are notable for holding public offices, not just for running for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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. If even the one "keep" opinion admits that this "has issues with the sources" then there's really only one way this AfD can go. Sandstein 21:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The Warlocks of the Fates

The Warlocks of the Fates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreleased video game that fails the notability guidelines. Out of the 18 sources used in this article, only four are actually reliable - the rest are just fansites or file-sharing websites like Github. Could find pretty much nothing on places like Internet Archive or Mobygames (who doesn't even have an entry for this game). Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am leaning delete for now since the only reliable coverage that seems to be actually in-depth is the Neo Geo Freak magazine one. The rest of them are blogs, unreliable or passing mentions/announcements in other magazines. I did a cut for some of those (that also made a WP:REFBOMB in the development section). It's nice to see an actual try to have an article about a Japanese cancelled video game, so I will abstain from voting for few days and come back to see if anything noteworthy has been found. For now, it seems like a failure of WP:GNG, and searching in Japanese and magazine archive led me to a dead end. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep This article is about a notable unreleased Neo Geo title. The issue I had on doing it was that it is hard to look for sources about unreleased titles, especially Neo Geo games. I know people has issues with the sources listed on its article but my vote goes to keep it. I spent time looking for sources about it. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. There's plenty of articles here for cancelled video games, but a lot of those constitute reliability. Good examples are Project Dream, Voyager, and Starblade: Operation Blue Planet. They got significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, where as The Warlocks of the Fates here has little other than some significant coverage in one magazine and some trivial mentions. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment One magazine? There's Game Machine, Neo Geo Freak, CD Consoles and Neo Geo World (an extremely difficult-to-find Neo Geo magazine that featured the game in its second issue) So, there's four magazines in total, NOT one as you're impliyng. Its most likely as well that Micom BASIC Magazine (in their arcade game section) and Gamest also featured the game as well but since nobody has scanned them, finding 1995 issues its nearly impossible. I do what I can... Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• But how many of those actually offer significant coverage? Game Machine gives it a trivial mention, CD Consoles has a small blurb on it, and I can't verify Neo Geo World. That leaves Neo Geo Freak the only usable one you listed. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 13:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment Yes, there are four (now five with Game Machine) magazine publications but if you count the issues where the game and its developer (Astec21) was featured, there're actually seven reliable sources included in the article + the Nico Nico Douga video references, which is a notable video streaming site in Japan. I'm not trying to convince anybody here to not delete the article but saying that there's only four source is very petty in my opinion... Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think you understand that the amount of reliable sources in an article doesn't automatically constitute reliability, it's if publications have covered this in-depth. Random mentions of this in magazines don't establish reliability. The Game Machine ref just mentions it. They didn't review it or anything, nor is there even really more than a paragraph about it. There's also flat-out unreliable sites like System-16 and fansites like "Neogeoforlife.com". I still think this fails the notability criteria. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. The good old WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine: first I typed "the warlocks of the fates" and got zero results. I figured I must've made a typo, so I copy-pasted the title. Again no results. The Japanese title, God Dragon War Record, didn't bring up any results either. So it isn't mentioned at all in any of the well-curated list of reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment Custom search engine will obviously lead you to knowhere. You have to type either "the warlovks of fates neo geo", "shinryu senki neo geo" or "神竜戦記" at Google. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The custom search engine finds results in all websites that are marked as reliable by Wikipedia. Googling the terms you provided brought me nowhere. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 00:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

KGRAMR, you've proven that WP:ITEXISTS (in a manner of speaking that is, considering it was cancelled during development), but no reliable sources have said anything about it and very little can be found about it in other sources. Clearly, there's no WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete There's not really enough information in those four sources to make a decent article. The number of sources may be okay, but there's nothing in-depth. MiscellaneousMarginalia (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I wonder if KGRAMR, the creator of the article, would even comment about this. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 09:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC) I wonder if this article's becoming a draft again. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 09:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of cancelled games for SNK consoles. To me, this is the best solution. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 09:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't a redirect is the best course of action. The game is not a plausable search term, and I doubt this will ever be able to have an article in the future. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Okay. «“I'm Aya Syameimaru!”I„文々。新聞“I„userbako”» 12:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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 The Side Effects (album). Sandstein 07:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

January 1st (Coldrain song)

January 1st (Coldrain song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not independently notable song that should be redirected to album The Side Effects (album), which is being repeatedly reverted. Available sources consist of basically nothing, even taking the unsuitable Twitter and Instagram micros into account. - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiction (Coldrain song); same issue (same editor). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I looked into the guidelines when it comes to songs and when enough sources are enough to warrant an article. This definitely seemed to be the case. This song has not repeatedly been reverted, I reverted it once when I backed up an independent source with another to provide addition evidence for the release of the single such as the release date. The other was used to prove that the song has been a big hit for the band in question. As shown from the following quote from a Chinese website in an English interview with the band Coldrain.

"The band perform several hit songs from a 12-year back catalogue, including “Envy,” “Feed the Fire,” “January 1st” and “Confession.”"

They could use any song from the band to state what they are known for. And they use "January 1st". Does this not establish and back up the claim for its notability to warrant an article?

Regarding the so called "unsuitable" sources from Twitter and Instagram. I used these to add even more information regarding the meaning and the teasers. Should I have not had them, it would make the creation of the article completely pointless as there would not be enough insightful information about the song.

I feel that the fact this article is being considered for deletion to be completely ridiculous and absurd. It's a notable song from a notable release in Japan, therefore it requires its own article.

I would also like to point out and add that @John B123: already reviewed this exact article after submission and accepted it 6 days ago.

I'll be happy to discuss my reason for removing the redirect to Fiction in that dicussion thread. I believe neither should be considered for deletion. --GeorgeKnight201101 (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you indeed look at the applicable guidelines? The above suggests otherwise. Let me quote the pertinent paragraph (the first...) in full:

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

I'm not seeing multiple, non-trivial, independent treatments. I'm seeing list entries, passing mentions, and social media promotion. These sources do not demonstrate notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae:

Of course I did. I previously mentioned that I did. That was the exact same paragraph I read carefully. The sources "Independent of the artist and the label", are shown as followed by a Japanese website, OkMusic, when shown in translation. To reveal enough information to not be considered a 'passing mention': https://okmusic.jp/news/349277, as well as being backed up by another independent source from a German website: https://www.morecore.de/news/coldrain-veroeffentlichen-ihren-neuen-song-january-1st/. Are these not considered to be independent sources? By definiton, neither are directly involved with the band or label. These sources do in fact showcase notability going by guidelines. Why is this page being considered for deletion? Especially, when it has already previously been approved. --GeorgeKnight20110101 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

These are the very definition of trivial coverage. The German "coverage" consists of "Here's a video from the new album; the song is called 'January 1st' and is more laid back than the last single." That's it. The Japanese source is of the same type. This stuff is worthless for both sourcing and establishing notability. And that is why the article is considered for deletion. (The previous "approval" is no more or less official than what I am doing now; it's all subject to discussion.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae:

There's a main difference between what is considered to be trivial and non-trivial. And that is significance. They may be random articles to point out that there is a new single release, as well as an accompanied music video. But that does not make them worthless sources. In hindsight, they may not have been the best sources to use as I did just find another source to back up the notability of the article in question. You can find that in the current version of the article, and here which I will link to you: https://gekirock.com/news/2019/08/coldrain_january_1st_release_mv.php

This 100% abides by those guidelines as a credible source to be used to establish "January 1st" as a notable article, as well as stating the new single release. It also states interesting facts about the forthcoming album (at the time). --GeorgeKnight201101 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That's two sentences. Half of which is filler. Really, I rest my case. No further comments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elmidae:

Funnily enough, it also rests my case. I argue that the rest of the information cannot be considered filler. It's independent, non-trivial and significant to not only the song, but also the album of The Side Effects. All criteria that links up to song guidelines of notability. I don't know what else I could offer if that doesn't tickle your pickle. The deletion request still makes no sense, as the initial reasons have now officially been shot down by the new source that I provided. We could be in dispute over this article for a week, month or heck, even a year. Someone eventually has to make the decision of what to do with the article. --GeorgeKnight201101 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Question - Would the chart positions be enough to count as notable? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Foxnpichu: By itself, no. That's an often misunderstood part of the guidelines. A chart position can serve as an indicator that there may be sufficient coverage around to make the song notable. But if a song is a #1 hit and nobody has bothered to write about it in depth, that coverage is just not there. Conversely, a song that never made the charts but has inspired several independent sources to discuss it in detail would a-okay for our purposes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

If a song reached #1 on a major chart but we haven't found anything written about it I would probably invoke WP:IAR to keep it. Rlendog (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case... Redirect to Coldrain. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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 Final Destination (album). (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Fiction (Coldrain song)

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

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

Not independently notable song; only halfway usable ref is one review of the album, that - does not mention the song. Should be redirected to album (Final Destination (album)), which has been repeatedly reverted. - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1st (Coldrain song); same issue (same editor). ---- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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 21:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hemi-laryngopharyngeal spasm

Hemi-laryngopharyngeal spasm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recently described syndrome, noted in the article as, "The prevalence and incidence of HeLPS is unknown". Most of the references are to the author's own publications, and my own searching finds more of the same. This (along with Draft:VANCOUVER syndrome) appear to be an effort by the author to promote their own research. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Weak delete - very interesting and good sourcing, but we avoid publishing original research. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Non-community, thus notability not established. Kudos to MB for finding that source Nosebagbear (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Rileys El Encinar, Arizona

Rileys El Encinar, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As far as I can tell, this is just a house by the highway. It shows up on the topos in the late 1950s (with an initial bobble with one that shows a "Riley" at the same place), but it's never more than the one house. Searching give nothing whatsoever except clickbait and omnium gatherum place lists, but I can find nothing that says anything about this beyond the bare GNIS data. Inserting the obvious apostrophe (which Google insists on if you don't correct it) gives exactly one hit. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Searching in newspapers.com finds this 1951 article that says the Riley family hosted a dinner at the El Encinar ranch. (Encinar translates to Holm Oak), so this appears to be a family ranch named after an Oak tree. No indication it was any type of community. MB 16:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Firm consensus that, at least under modern notability interpretations, it doesn't meet requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

August Albo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/August Albo
• Articles for deletion/August Albo (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/August Albo (3rd nomination)

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

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

GNG fail. There were two previous AfDs: the first used some very bad arguments to keep, and the second had fairly weak participation. The Estonian Wiki sources do not use sources for much beyond birth and death dates. This English wiki article is not even sure of his date of death or real name. We determine notability by published sources, of which there are not enough to establish his notability, let alone real name or date of death. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete the article lacks multiple reliable sources needed to establish notability. With people claiming to have commissioned him to do work 20 or more years after he according to other sources died there is a mystery here that is the type that shows how lacking the sources are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I flagged this article for notability two years ago, and given that it hasn't improved over that time, I support deleting, as it doesn't meet GNG or NARTIST --Theredproject (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per above. In 2006, during the first AfD, we excused a lot of crap. I didn't participate in either. There's just not enough sourcing available. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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 Martin Newell (musician)#Bibliography. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Martin Newell bibliography

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

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

Fails WP:LISTN, no evidence this body of work has received significant coverage as a group. --Pontificalibus 11:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This isn't the appropriate venue. This is a merge proposal, not a deletion request. Pburka (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The main article already contains a suitable list, I’m not arguing for a merge.—--Pontificalibus 13:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Then we'd just redirect it to that section. Still not a proper deletion request. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I've clarified my rationale to make it clear that this is a valid AfD discussion.----Pontificalibus 14:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to parent article and redirect to section. I also don't think it merits a split due to size, but publisher and ISBN are certainly "suitable" facts to include for works listed in a bibliography, and the list currently at Martin Newell (musician) just has titles and years. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Martin Newell is a notable poet, columnist and author whos work has been published on multiple occasions in major UK newspapers. And Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works states that splitting out bibliographies from main articles "is warranted if the list becomes so long that its inclusion in the main article would be unsuitable". memphisto
• Keep. Merging his bibliography into the main article but leaving his discography separate would unbalance the main article: there would be significantly more words dedicated to his writing than to his music, for which he's just as well known. However, I'd consider merging the bibliography and the discography. Pburka (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete/merge Books are already at Martin_Newell_(musician)#Bibliography, article is absolutely not too long to require a split. No reason for separate page just to list publishers and ISBNs. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge without a redirect to Martin_Newell_(musician)#Bibliography, no need to have this separate from main article ie. its not WP:TOOLONG, publishing details definitely needs to be added though. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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 Link 80. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Desa (band)

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

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

Unsourced, fails WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: their website's dead so I think it's safe to assume they're no longer working together, and there's no evidence that they made much of a dent while they were. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - Found 2 RS, not enough. Caro7200 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as they do have a staff written bio at AllMusic here] as well as two staff written album reviews which normally indicates that more coverage is available. Will do a full search tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Found a lot of articles about them at Punk News, press the search button here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that additional sources were presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I've gone through all the links in Punk News. They're either press releases, mentions of support slots or track listings for compilation albums, or interviews with former band members: these are all excluded per WP:BAND. I'm not convinced that the AllMusic sourcing amounts to coverage in "multiple, non-trivial, published works". ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Link 80: I'm not seeing coverage apart from the two AllMusic reviews[44][45]. Punknews does have a review, but that seems to be that reviewer's only review[46][47], and even if that were counted it's not reaching NBAND or GNG. The band is, however, a subsequent project of the members of Link 80, so WP:NBAND#6 does not be apply, but it would be reasonable to expand slightly on Desa (separate sub-section?) there using the three Allmusic refs and limited bits of passing coverage. That said, there may well be offline music magazine coverage due to the era. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Link 80 per Hydronium Hydroxide. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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) buidhe 00:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

French art dealers committee

French art dealers committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY; French language article and other searches didn't turn up enough. Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: There's a book published in 2017: Le Comité professionnel des galeries d'art: 70 ans d'histoire : 1947-2017 [48] Le Comité professionnel des galeries d'art is described as the French name for the professional association in the article, and I think a book specifically about its 70 years of history counts as significant coverage. Clovermoss (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Starring Julia

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

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

Non-notable short film. Only claims of notability relate to non-notable (no bluelink that I can find) awards. Part of potential walled-garden for Elie Fahed (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life in 2 Minutes that led to deletion of another such article). DMacks (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I have begun article clean up and added references. More work is yet to be done. However: notable short film from a notable director, as evidenced by the coverage and awards in Festival publications and GQ Magazine etc. The claim of WP:WG is one without merit. FYI: this is a foreign language film by a director from Lebanon (which is not known for cinema). The film won awards from festivals which may not be as prominent as the Sundance Film Festival, however they are notable organizations which do not yet have Wikipedia pages. WP:NFP is met with reliable sources covering the topic. Lightburst (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding WG, it's a WP:SPA who has been writing "this person and their films" for 8 years, repeatedly ignoring copyright warnings in the process on both enwiki and commons (some of which probably only visible to admins there). Nobody else seems to have worked on these articles, and multiple editors have left comments and tags about various problems. DMacks (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• KEEP The film coverage at https://www.the961.com/lebanese-filmmaker-makes-it-to-portugal-gq-men-of-the-year/ and the coverage mentioned at GQ Portugal, give it significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Dream Focus 02:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 21:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Satrangi Re

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

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

Written in way of publicity UserPankajM (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The subject of this article fails Fails WP:PROMOTION , WP:BIO and WP:GNG . None of the references cited in the article discuss the subject, apart they are not reliable. As a matter, majority of them are promotional links to the subject's projects; the remaining refs are about the non-notable accolades he garnered. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. None of the awards and nominations he was a recipient of are notable. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. UserPankajM (talk)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Satish Motling

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

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

The subject of this article fails Fails WP:PROMOTION , WP:BIO and WP:GNG . None of the references cited in the article discuss the subject, apart they are not reliable. As a matter, majority of them are promotional links to the subject's projects; the remaining refs are about the non-notable accolades he garnered. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. None of the awards and nominations he was a recipient of are notable. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. UserPankajM (talk)

Trailers cant be count as source and no reliable source at all! UserPankajM (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Found some WP:RS but lacks extensive coverage upon a preliminary google search. More information found about his work than him. Sadly a common problem with non-English articles. There are probably good Marathi sources but they are not published online all the time so will be difficult to search. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nilesh Jalamkar

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

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

The subject of this article fails Fails WP:PROMOTION , WP:BIO and WP:GNG . None of the references cited in the article discuss the subject, apart they are not reliable. As a matter, majority of them are promotional links to the subject's projects; the remaining refs are about the non-notable accolades he garnered. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. None of the awards and nominations he was a recipient of are notable. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. UserPankajM (talk)

No Reliable sources and language use looks like made for self publicity UserPankajM (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Have added references is a popular Marathi Director has done only around 5 films but his films are hits passes WP:DIRECTOR.Have not accessed the coverage in the Marathi language.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Particularly given the edits to the article from Pharaoh of the Wizards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Currently insufficient sources to show notability. Obviously no issues with recreation if, at some stage, it receives sufficient suitable sourcing Nosebagbear (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Devi Aadi Parashakti

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

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

No media coverage is available for this TV show. Clearly fails WP:GNG. GargAvinash (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GargAvinash (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GargAvinash (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete for now - The TV show is a new show, but if it runs for a longer period of time with more sources, then I would support keeping it. Interstellarity (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the show has lack of coverage in reliable media. Appears to be a garden variety serial that no one cares about. Notability is the question here, even if it runs for longer period of time, the article may not be created if newspapers and media do not bother about covering this. --Cedix (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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. While there is consensus that the article could do with a re-write, there does not appear to be any consensus either on notability grounds or whether the article is so promotional that it warrants deletion on either grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hardeek Joshi

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

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

The Content, Style of writting, social profile itself making clear reason for making article. UserPankajM (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The subject of this article fails Fails WP:PROMOTION , WP:BIO and WP:GNG . None of the references cited in the article discuss the subject, apart they are not reliable. As a matter, majority of them are promotional links to the subject's projects; the remaining refs are about the non-notable accolades he garnered. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. None of the awards and nominations he was a recipient of are notable. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. UserPankajM (talk)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Most of the English sources are Times of India articles, but some of them do appear to be acceptable for the purposes of WP:GNG, like these:

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/marathi/tuzhyat-jeev-rangala-to-take-a-leap-rana-da-will-make-a-re-entry-soon/articleshow/69854773.cms

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/marathi/hardeek-joshi-turns-a-villain/articleshow/57580969.cms

I can't speak for the non-English sources. In terms of WP:NACTOR, the subject has starred in 1,000 episodes of Tujhyat Jeev Rangala and has had a couple of significant roles in films, including Rangaa Patangaa (though I'm not sure how notable those films are). All in all, I don't think this article needs to be deleted—although I do agree with the nominator that it is poorly written. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Keep He has acted in Tujhyat Jeev Rangala is a hit and a notable TV show ongoing since 2016 with over which has run over 1100 episodes here he is the male lead. With an ongoing career see little point in delating it.Further there is coverage in the Marathi Language .With the coverage from The Times of India feel it will scrape through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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) buidhe 00:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Sarpotdar

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

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

Non reliable sources. UserPankajM (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC) The subject of this article fails Fails WP:PROMOTION , WP:BIO and WP:GNG . None of the references cited in the article discuss the subject, apart they are not reliable. As a matter, majority of them are promotional links to the subject's projects; the remaining refs are about the non-notable accolades he garnered. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. None of the awards and nominations he was a recipient of are notable. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. UserPankajM (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. UserPankajM (talk)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep no evidence of BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Meets GNG, multiple items in RS over the years. 2018 Filmfare Marathi Awards Best Director nominee. Notable Marathi film maker.

References

--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per Goldsztajn passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Particularly in light of the sources from Goldsztajn. A ping for Johnpacklambert in case you want to take another look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Douglas Sloan (television producer)

Douglas Sloan (television producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable BLP. IMDB has been the only source for several years. Deprodded by another editor but no sources have been added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete that an article with 0, and I mean 0, reliable sources has existed for almost 15 years is a blemish on Wikipedia. Last yet we saw a lot of 2009 or so created undersourced articles nominated for deletion. I did not realize we had so many articles dating back to 2005. Wikipedia's lack of anything like notability criteria before 2006, and the failure to ever review all articles that existed then to make sure that they were being meant is still plaguing us to this day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per Nom and JPL. An article sourced from the "External links" section classifies the article as unsourced Our system has some flaws in it for sure. An article PROD can be contested by anyone (usually the creator) and it can only be used twice if the first time was a WP:BLPPROD, but most editors likely are unaware of that. Placing even a totally unreliable IMDb source in an "External links" section creates a stumbling block to that so an article hangs around until there is an AFD. A BLP with only an IMDb source, and nothing indicating the subject is noteworthy on a search to prove otherwise, does not need to be included on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. I won't address the process here, tempting as it may be. However, we almost always delete articles about producers, because as behind the scenes people, they are so run of the mill and don't get the coverage people in front of the camera get. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac15 19:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

SMART HDD

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

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

Not individually notable as the ources listed do not appear to be reliable as they are simply entries in security company databases. There is no in-depth coverage on the malware even in the specialised computer security press. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The sources already in the article do not match the nominator's description; this for example is not an "entry in a security company database." There are sources showing what it is, how to remove it, and they go into great detail about it, unambiguously meeting WP:GNG. Just because some of the sources are database entries does not mean that all of the sources are; something that should have been checked before nominating the article for deletion. A cursory Google search shows plenty of articles that go into detail about what it is and how to remove it[49][50][51][52][53][54] as well as a few books such as Introduction to Machine Learning with Applications in Information Security and research papers such as this one. It does not appear that any effort was taken to discuss on the article's talk page or search for sources before nominating the article for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Except that the removal guides are not reliable sources for they are self-published and likely sponsored by security companies, the other two simply have trivial, passing mentions of the subject, which is certainly not enough to establish notability for it is not in-depth coverage. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your definition of self-published does not match Wikipedia's definition, and if you're claiming they are sponsored content, you need to show how that's the case, rather than make wild stabs at trying to discredit sources. Do you have evidence of this claim? As for the book and the research papers, what you're describing as trivial again does not match Wikipedia's definition of that term:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The book and the research paper not only uses SMART HDD (not S.M.A.R.T) in its work, but goes into detail into what it is and why it matters in the context of the book. That's not a trivial mention by any measure of the word. Even if your assertion that the other reliable sources are sponsored content, the article's subject still meets WP:GNG, as there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Given the depth in which the sources go into the topic's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A trivial mention would be "there are other malware such as SMART HDD" and nothing further. The research paper, for example, says "We're testing malware including SMART HDD and here's the findings, here's what SMART HDD is (pg 8), what it does and why it's included within a certain family of malware (pg 12), how the AUC comparisons stack up on figures 9 and 10 (on the research paper, pp. 10-11) and a further explanation of what SMART HDD actually is (pg 8). In what way is that a trivial mention? - Aoidh (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Strong delete: The removal guides are WP:ROUTINE for malware, and from questionable sources at that. Outside of mentioning it as part of a group of tested malware, the book and paper only have the same short blurb about the software. This is unsurprising as they turn out to have a common author, meaning that they are considered to be one source for purposes of notability. A single extremely poor citation does not confer notability even in the best of cases, but this is an article about malware, which Wikipedia should not be writing about unless it is clearly and unambiguously notable (much like the higher standards for hoaxes, or even BLPs). Modernponderer (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:MILL malware; the sources are trivial or self-published. Sandstein 07:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - While this certainly exists and has garnered a bit of infamy... well, that's not the same thing as notability. I agree. I'm also inclined to think that the malware doesn't merit its own page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Lo Que Te Mereces Tour

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lo Que Te Mereces Tour
• Articles for deletion/Lo Que Te Mereces Tour (2nd nomination)

Lo Que Te Mereces Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I brought this tour previously to AfD in November 2017 as being unreferenced, not passing WP:GNG or WP:CONCERT TOUR and it was closed as No consensus. There was discussion about Spanish references with one editor thinking there was not enough to pass WP:GNG and another to think there was and linked one reference in the discussion. I am not sure that this reference is a reliable source, it was not added to the article and no references have been added in the past two and a half years ago to show this a notable tour. Aspects (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, although the reference Aspects refer to is reliable (it's Radio Fórmula), there's nothing relevant in this page other than the setlist, which is unsourced. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 18:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Procedural closure. No discussion, filer indefinitely blocked for disruptive deletion requests. Sandstein 21:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Internshala

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

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

Article doesn't passes Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Nothing any special achievement to the company. Its look like that this page is created for advertising. Raaj Tilak (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Raaj Tilak (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Raaj Tilak (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Raaj Tilak (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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 Baron Aberconway. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway
• Articles for deletion/Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway (2nd nomination)

Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The baron seems to be rather barren of accomplishments and is not entitled to sit in the House of Lords (see List of hereditary peers removed under the House of Lords Act 1999), so WP:BIO is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. We keep all peers per consensus. See here. Until 1999 all peers were notable anyway per WP:POLITICIAN as members of a national legislature. For consistency's and common sense's sake, it makes no sense not to have articles on those few who have not sat in the Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete since not all peers are no in the House of lords, there is no reason to keep articles on all of them. No actual sign that McLaren is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete For consistency's sake, we already have articles for all baronies like Baron Aberconway where this can be redirected/merged. See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Notability_of_peers and WP:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage: "There is no consensus that nobility infers automatic notability, and a previous proposal to establish this has failed." An WP:INHERITED title that once seated one in the house of lords but no longer is therefore no longer automatic notability, exempted from the common sense of requiring significant coverage, or having accomplished something besides a wealthy lineage. Reywas92^Talk 16:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The topic has already been discussed and kept at AfD. As the nomination is mostly personal bias per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  ↑ Fails to make an argument to keep the article, just as there were no arguments in the prior one that even addressed the article itself, just nonsense about automatic notability in violation of WP:SIGCOV that has not been established in guidelines. There is no ban on renomination six years later as WP:CCC. Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Referring to other editors' arguments as "nonsense" usually equates to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Consensus counts at AfD. We have a clear consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Baron Aberconway. I don't rule out the possibility that sources could be found to establish the subject as notable; the previous AfD suggested that he might be notable as an art collector, but there is nothing in this article about that. If someone wants to try again with better sources to establish notability, that's fine with me. Not having an article about him would not create an inconsistency. After all, there are many other current British barons who don't have articles of their own either; see all the redlinks on Template:Current Barons of the United Kingdom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Baron Aberconway. The title itself is notable, the person not. DrKay (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect. WP:NOPAGE applies here. He inherited in 2003 (after the November 1999 changes), and did not sit in the House of Lords.[55] Nor does his page usefully interlink some number of otherwise unrelated bluelinks. Nor is there sigcov. Inheriting a Picasso is that's been in the family for generations is literally WP:NOTINHERITED. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Baron Aberconway. As this person did not sit in the House of Lords, he does not meet WP:NPOL. I could find no coverage that would count towards notability, so he fails WP:GNG. Since the article contains no sourced material, a Merge is not appropriate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. If we have a change in consensus, it has to be very clear and I'd like many more !votes, ideally in the 30 to 50 range (pardon the pun). For example when the consensus changed about the automatically notability of high schools and district superintendents. literally hundreds of Wikipedians chimed in. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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 delete per WP:A11. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Leosville

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

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

Purely local coverage, also a recentism. Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. There should be a couple of local media outlets that report the claim as a space-filler, but that is not what WP:N means. The article can be recreated after the alleged micronation has been noted in substantial media reports after a few years. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a G3 hoax and also per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. The supposed area of this "micronation" encompasses Kirkwood Community College and all the surrounding housing. There is no actual micronation there, and no evidence any of the landowners are even aware they are part of this guy's made up kingdom. ----Pontificalibus 10:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A11 as clearly made up by the article's creator, who has been vandalizing other related articles with content related to this. Tagged as such. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  In which case the creator probably should be blocked for vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ximena Ríos

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Are we sure about this? She's received a lot of Spanish-language press since she plays in Liga MX Femenil. [56] [57] [58] [59] That's not at all exhaustive and she's certainly received a good degree of press - much of it was for the U17 world cup which wouldn't count, but much of it has also been for her work at Club America, a top-5 club in North America. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Fails NFOOTY but passes GNG per the excellent research by SportingFlyer. Smartyllama (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails NFOOTBALL (it doesn't matter how good/bad a club is) and GNG (1 is a press release according to Google, 2 is "local girl does good", 3 is a blog and 4 is one sentence off some random website). I struggled to find anything else for GNG purposes. Dougal18 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've been ignoring the heaps of match reports, but you can also see [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] on top of the other coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• 8 is a brief mention in an article about Mexican women's football, 9 is a match report (she got booked), 10 (she takes part in some video with Wolves players), 11 is a press release and 12 is about her call up to the Mexico U-20 team along with two other players. It's still a delete for me.Dougal18 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Article about semi-pro footballer and Mexico youth international that appears to just satisfy the GNG. See table below for a summary of sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.cuartopoder.mx/deportes/ximena-rios-triunfa-en-futbol/270550/	Cuarto Poder is an independent newspaper	Regional newspaper of Chiapas	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
http://cmpic.com.mx/ximena-rios-zarate-deporte-liga-mx-femenil/	CMPIC is an independent women's organization	? The author's level of journalistic expertise in Mexican football in unclear	? The source discusses the subject directly but not in great detail	? Unknown
https://laopinion.com/2020/01/17/siguen-volando-alto-dos-aguilas-estan-en-el-once-ideal-de-la-liga-mx-femenil/	La Opinión is an independent newspaper	Spanish-language newspaper with widest circulation in the United States	? The sources discusses the subject directly but not in great detail	? Unknown
https://diariodechiapas.com/inicio/ximena-rios-orgullo-chiapaneco/47309	Diario de Chiapas is an independent newspaper	Regional newspaper of Chiapas	? Article appears to be hidden behind some kind of paywall	? Unknown
https://diariodechiapas.com/inicio/una-tuxtleca-promesa-mundial-de-fut/47174	Diario de Chiapas is an independent newspaper	Regional newspaper of Chiapas	? Article appears to be hidden behind some kind of paywall	? Unknown
http://www.ligabbva.mx/cancha/detallenoticia/26193/ximena-rios-talento-de-las-aguilas-del-america	? Ríos' club is a member of Liga MX, but she is employed by the club rather than the league	Top professional league in Mexico	? The sources discusses the subject directly but not in great detail	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Certainly seems to be potential for GNG here, but further discussion could help gain a stronger consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep She fails NFOOTY, but per the analysis of Jogurney she passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Just about consensus to delete. There's some sourcing available and I wouldn't stand in the way of recreation if that could be expanded upon. Fenix down (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Brian Kalumba

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Alleged national team appearances not supported by sources --BlameRuiner (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would kindly ask KingSkyLord (talk · contribs) to stop dePRODing every football player article he sees. --BlameRuiner (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @BlameRuiner: I did not dePROD all of them. Just the ones that I thought I could argue for keeping around. @Jogurney also dePRODed some of them as well. Playing in a Tier 1 International match automatically passes WP:NFOOTY, therefore passing WP:GNG. I would look for more citations rather than just delete it as a whole, which is very stressful cause he plays in Uganda and the less coverage. Although there may be possibly some good sources if we look hard enough. Seems like more of a stub than anything else. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I didn't find any sources to prove he has been capped for Uganda for a WP:NFOOTY pass. He also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of in depth coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Keep He got called up to the Cranes U23, not the Cranes. There have been several articles on him specifically as a footballer and he just might pass WP:GNG as he's a striker for one of the most prominent Ugandan club teams, Vipers SC. [65] [66] as a sample. He technically fails WP:NFOOTY but the Ugandan league is decently well covered by that country's national press and he may very well pass WP:GNG SportingFlyer T·C 06:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep per SportingFlyer. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete he does not yet meet our insanely broad football inclusion rules. Wikipedia is supposed to be limited to articles on people who have made an impact and received coverage, not just every person who ever was fielded in a professional game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Women's World Championship

Women's World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason Dilbaggg (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The article does not list any valid source. It is compared to the article World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (original version) which was established in 1905 and has numerous valid source including its publication in new Yorks Time edition of 1905: [67]. It is the first recognized wrestling championship worldwide , acknowledged in every wrestling sources and organizations that offer wrestling such as WWE, WCW, NWA, etc and fits WP:PW/RS. However the only two source sited on the article Women's World Championship was published in 2011 [68] and [69], before which the whole concept was unheard of, it has no significance in any sources listed valid in WP:PW/RS and no news publication ever before 2011, unlike the 1905 title. This single source that the article is based on has 0 validity, it in no ways fits WP:RS. Other than this two unreliable sources there is not a single source of its existence. Most of the people listed were not wrestlers like Josephine Blatt she was a circus strongwoman, she was never a wrestler, no record of any matches or when ever she won this fictional title. Most of the entries have "when?" tag because there is no source at all to when ever if at all these people actually won the title. Prior to 2012 her article never named her a wrestler, you can check the revision history. She was only listed a wrestler to give this fictional title credibility, it has no source that she ever wrestled a match let alone win this title. Most of the other women listed have no articles, no source to verify they ever existed let alone were wrestlers or won this title. Mildred Burke is the only actual wrestler in the list who is the first womens champion ever but that was a completely different title, it was NWA World Women's Championship which she won 1935/1937 , and has valid source. [70]. Her battle for this title is not recognized anywhere, she is also disputed and officially acknowledged by NWA to have won the title in 1950, yet since this source exist (which still do not fit WP:PW/RS it has been included she won in 1935/1937]]. Returning the the Women's World Championship, to give this fake title credibility they included wrestlers who won completely different titles. There is no acknowledgement of this title ever before 2011 and after 2011 only this single unreliable source which has no validity exists: [71] and [72], which do not meet Wp:RS guidelines, and prior to 2011 were non existent and most of the contents on the articles are violations of WP:OR and WP:POV. The WP:PW has been on general sanction for violating WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:POV, this is just another examples and it violates all three. The lack of any credible source and the contradictory information in this article which is mostly WP:OR content should be enough to justify its deletion. WP:N,WP:BIO and WP:V are also violated. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I have written everything that is needed to be known why it should be deleted above. Please read carefully. However I did do one final revision to show further how unreliable and invalid this article is here: [73] Dilbaggg (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin - This is a duplicate vote, as Dilbaggg was also the nominator. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep but purge pre-1930s I agree with a lot of what you wrote, my guess is that someone compiled a table and included every pre-1950s lady wrestler who ever claimed to have been a champion. This obviously does not mean that they all held the same championship and sourcing is scarce enough to doubt that some of them ever even made such a claim. However, the Mortenson reign and those that came after it seem to form a single notable title.[74][75][76][77] Burke was an established women's champion, separate from the NWA,[78] and several sources describe her as Women's World Champion, or simply "women's wrestling champion", without promotional branding.[79][80][81] However, June Byers defeated her in a controversial fashion to be the recognized as the NWA world champion.[82] It's not unusual that NWA would appropriate a different title history, WWF would do the same to their title when they bought Moolah's and it became the WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010).LM2000 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Non of the pre Burke have any credible sources of championship reigns, nor with the exception of Cora Livingston there are any claims they ever held the titles, and no source proves that she won the title in 1910 from any of the ladies mentioned above her. this article is too unreliable and is clearly mixing up different title reigns as one. I agree with purging the pre 1930s, most of them were never wrestlers but strongwomen who never wrestled a match let alone won titles. It is to be noted that Nikkimaria seems to be citing bleacher report's 2011 edition which is just a unverifiable copy paste of the unreliable source provided above. It should be a reminder to her that pre 2013 edition of bleacher report is not reliable per WP:PW/RS and it is clearly said there to refrain from using them. Nikkimaria is known to cite unreliable sources that do not meet the criteria of WP:PW/RS on multiple articles. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment. In the early days of pro wrestling, it was a circus attraction. It doesn't see strange a strongwoman winning a title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't even called women's world championship then, and there is 0 WP:RS that those strong women ever wrestled let alone won the title unlike the 1905 men's world championship which was published in the New York Times in 1905, there is even a picture of the belt and Frank and George wrestling actual match. Saying circus wrestling is the same as pro wrestling is like saying ammeature wrestling and all forms of wrestling are. Regardles there is no verification that the pre 1930s entries wrestled/won titles, before 2011 when the unreliable source in question came there was absolute no information regarding this title, for example until 2013 Josephine Blatt article named her as a strongwoman, then to give this fake title credibility it was claimed she was a wrestler despite there being no records of her ever fighting. A source of her weightlifting on Mexico was even misinterpreted that she wrestled despite there being no such information on the given source. These types of issues is exactly why WP:PW is under general sanction. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, pro wrestling was part of circus and carnival, so it would be normal some strongmen win a title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A pure WP:OR violating statement, there is no source as to any of those strong women winning it (or even wrestling). Only Cora Livingston from 1910 has a source, it doesn't even connect the titles, could be different titles, also the source in her articles do not fit WP:PW/RS and it was only created in 2018. No WP:V at all for the pre 1930s portion. Every WP:RS cites the 1905 men's title irrespective of gender as the first "professional wrestling" world championship ever. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It is original research to state that initially pro wrestling was part of the circus and carnival shows? History disagrees. Is it OR to say that some of the early champions were or started out as "strongmen"? Please explain how those statements are original research? MPJ-DK (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Another side note I can use various unreliable sources like [83] that mens world championship also existed long before 1905, according to that article "In 1898, the Frenchman Paul Pons, also named “the Colossus”, was the first Professional World Champion", but it just does not fit WP:PW/RS yet seems better than misinterpreting a strongwoman's weightlifting actions as her "wrestling" as the post 2013 article on Josephine Blatt did. Non of the pre 1930s entries have any credible source, no WP:V they were wrestlers. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

But you agree that at least a portion of these reigns can be properly sourced and are notable, right? We can argue about who belongs in the table, who belongs in the prose, and who doesn't belong in either, but AfD is not the place for that.LM2000 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, struck my original pre-30s comment. Let's go where sources take us, a concept article like Women's championships in WWE would accommodate multiple titles if we agree there is no single lineage.LM2000 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

LM2000This lineage has 0 Wp:V, there is no source when the first champion Josie won the tile, nor anyone before Cara Livingston winning the title in 1910 (and that might be a totally different title from this), the earliest section that has the slightest Wp:V despite not fitting WP:PW/RS is Cara Livingston from 1910, absolutely no one before her does. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

My point exactly. If we agree Cara Livingston was a women's champion ~1910 then she should be included somewhere. Or the article can just cover the Mortenson/Burke lineage if that's what we decide to do. Either way, we all seem to agree there's no notability issue, so this should be closed and taken to the talk page.LM2000 (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree, this page should be closed and taken to the talk page. The points made here are good and should be preserved though. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - To say that the "whole concept was unheard of" before 2011 is disingenuous at best. It is attested to on page 15 in Wrestling Title Histories by Gary Will and Royal Duncan. The fourth, and most recent, edition of this book was published in 2000, and it is the most comprehensive book of its kind. Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter called it "Easily the greatest reference work ever published on pro wrestling", and, in response to the mentions above of The New York Times, it is significant that the newspaper referred to Will and Duncan's book as "The bible of the sport". While portions of the title history differ, there is no dispute about the existence or notability of the title. The article can be edited, but deletion is clearly the wrong approach. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan Best if you link the source you are talking about. lets see what it exactly says and what it doesn't say. And the said book was published in 2000, not the dates given on the article, unlike the NYT edition of 1905 which published the men's title win in the exact year, why should something written on something a 100 year later be credible when there is absolutely no source from that time? NYT in 2000 isn't the same as NYT from 1900s. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:RS, nowhere in there does it disqualify a source if it's printed "more than X years after the event". Third-party? Check. Published? Check. Fact checking and accuracy? Has editors involved to check, has been cited by Meltzer and a ton of others as "the bible" and accurate. Oh and, it has a whole section dedicated to it - significant coverage, in reliable, published, third party source. The very definition of "RS". MPJ-DK (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The source he mentioned has not even been provided yet, let it be provided and see what it actually includes and what it does not. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

So please provide the cost of a scanner or copier and an address to send it to - You do know what a book is right? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MPJ-DK if it is something that cannot be viewed and you are claiming what a book contains without even being able to see it that is definitely WPOR violation, best to use only viewebale WP:RS, at least the NYT extract for the 1905 championship that is so accurate it was published in the year the match happened, also having a picture of Frank and George wrestling as well as a picture of the title, and it is widely accepted by Wp:PW/RS as the first world championship. This title does not have 1 % the WP:V that has. Anyway I have decided to close the discussion and cancel deletion, rather the matter would be resolved on talk page of that article keeping in mind what has been discussed here. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a complete and utterly ridiculous pile of misinformation that has no hold in any WP guideline or policy ever written. Please educate yourself before making such categorical statements, especially when you are 100% wrong. LM2000 even gave you the appropriate guideline right below this. Articles using printed sources are not "OR" according to any guideline anywhere on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I never said the book is unreliable, I said your claims could be OR (like claiming to read the book when you haven't, we can't be sure what you will add is based on the book or not anyway), since the contents of the book can't be read, we cannot be sure what it says, best to use sources per WP:PW/RS anyway. Non of the sources mentioned in the articles and even 90% wrestlers mentioned in the articles have sources per WP:PW/RS. Why keep talking about a book which isn't cited, can't be viewed (unlike the NYT 1905 extract) anyway. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

So what guideline are you citing when you imply OR? MPJ-DK (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I have already agreed with LM2000, I have decided the deletion proposal be cancelled, the discussion be continued on talk page and unreliable contents with no WP:RS be purged. This may be my final comment here, waiting for this discussion to close. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries, but thank you for owning up to the fact that you made an OR claim without any actual facts to back it up. Please do start a conversation on the talk page or whever when you can explain what makes you not AGF the prinited claim and how WP:PAPERONLY does apply here "because you said so". So please, be a wikipedian of your word, reply on the talk page.MPJ-DK (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have not made any OR claim, if anyone is doing it its you. I just pointed out a possibility that a book which can't be viewed may be misrepresented. Misrepresentation is a common feature of WP:PW, no OR claim here, just see Talk:Josephine Blatt, how a source was totally misrepresented there. Anyway the discussion closed from my part, anyone who wants can remove the deletion tag. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I know I promised not to quote your replies to you, but your claims could be OR (like claiming to read the book when you haven't, we can't be sure what you will add is based on the book or not anyway) this is where you clearly stated you that you could consider what I said as "OR", and then referred to me stating that I read the book - I didn't actually state that I read the book, I am not the editor who originally introuduced the "Wrestling Title Histories" book into the discussion either.. But I don't expect you to acknowledge this, nor take the discussion to the talk page as you stated. I've done 10 minutes of research on the matter and I have found several RS entries that state she wrestled, and some articles to pint to where idea of the "Women's World Championship" claim came from. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, see WP:PAPERONLY.LM2000 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with the statements put forward by GaryColemanFan and LM2000, the concept of a "Women's World Championship" in professional wrestling that predates the creation of the NWA World Women's Championship. The Will & Duncan source is a reliable source, about the most well researched and most respected source on professional wrestling championship history prior to 2000. Your agument focuses on certain content in the article - was there a 19th century "Women's World Champion"? Dubious that it was called that, but a content problem doesn't mean the overall article should necessarly be deleted. A couple of facts below. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The article does not list any valid source - Notability is not about the sources presented in the article.
  • the only two source sited on the article Women's World Championship was published in 2011 factually incorret, not sure where you got the published date from?? I can find archived versions of the site going back to 2003, and the Will & Ducan source predates that in print format, with 4 versions published in the 1990s.
  • Most of the entries have "when?" tag Not a deletion criteria, and had 3 out of 15 lines tagged and now has 4, does not fall in my definition of "most".
  • She was only listed a wrestler to give this fictional title credibility, now who is doing "OR" in regards to the movtivation of an editor. Please do not "assume" something to suit your POV, that's not WP:NPOV.
  • Mildred Burke is the only actual wrestler - hmmm could have sworn that Cora Livingston's and June Byers's article states she's a full time wrestler. Do you have any sources claiming these other women were not at some point professional wrestlers? Again you engage in OR to support your claim.

Nope the issues have already been discussed above, you do not seem to have the time to read them. I hate repeating myself, so please read before making claims to suit your POV. Nope non of the sources in the article given fits WP:PW/RS. I already said to User:GaryColemanFan provide the source he is talking about, lets see what it includes or not. I have not maintained anything to suit my POV, your manner of interaction shows you are though, and I do not trust your immature behavior from your interaction on the talk page. At least the others commenting are all sensible. Most of the things you wrote I already addressed above, you do not seem to have the time to read them. Most of them listed like I said were strongwomen, not wrestlers, rather reviewing Josie's edit history I see malicious practice, she was only listed a wrestler to give this fake title credibility, upto 2013 her edit history doesn't show her to be a wrestler. Rather a source of the weightlifting career in Mexico has been deliberately misinterpreted as her wrestling their, checking the source I found nothing at all about wrestling, its just weight lifting. The pre existing when tags from 2014 clearly shows there is nothing to suggest when those strongwomen wrestled, won the titles, if at all this is the same title, from whom they won it, so on. It is officially recognized ll over the world as per WP:Rs that the 1905 title is the first world title. I have already showed other sources claim there were other men's title in the 1890s, but I will never include them as they do not fit WP:PW/RS, but you seem to be doing the opposite pusihing your POV, adding unreliable sources and OR content. Cora Livingston was only written in 2018, the sources on her article are not WP:PW/RS. It appears like entirely different title regimes are being listed as a single title in this article. Regardless I totally agree with LM2000 if not deleted the pre 1930s section should be purged for the lack of WP:V, WP:RS and inclusion of WP:OR content. The majority of other editors already agreed that section is unreliable. Lets see what other editors have to say and what the consensus leads to. Non WP:PW members are encouraged for neutral view. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• keep I agree with Gary and MPJ-DK. There are sources and the complains are refuted. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am beginning to think the section that has sources even if they do not fall on WP:PW and are not WP:V can stay, but those without sources can be removed regardless of what this consensus leads to. Well since its only Wp:PW members commenting I do not trust the neutrality of this discussion anymore, so I no longer care of the outcome of this discussion. But as per normal wikipedia policy things that would violate WP:V and WP:RS may be removed and I have already mentioned some malicious misleading practices like in Talk:Josephine Blatt page. I am done with this. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to remove the deletion tag, the matter can be resolved on the article talk page, the discussion here should be preserved and moved there. Please close the discussion. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Tone 19:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

V3 Tower

V3 Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN building. No claim of significance in article. Not on List of tallest building in Dubai. Searching finds a lot of routine real-estate listing for apartments for sale in the building. MB 04:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 04:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - in line with nom, no reliable/independent sourcing I could fine, and no real claim of significance anyway Nosebagbear (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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. Nomination withdrawn. Clearly headed for keep/ Drmies (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Beer in Argentina

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

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

Deprodded with no rationale. Notable topic but the current unreferenced substub list deserves a WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has been around for two and a half years and still has zero sentences of prose. If this article were anywhere near the quality of, say, the Beer in Brazil or Beer in Chile articles, then I would be happy to support a "keep" recommendation, but as of now I can't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks to the efforts of ClemRutter among others, the article has been sufficiently improved to warrant keeping it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination admits that the topic is notable. It then cites WP:TNT but that is neither policy nor guideline. Our actual policies are:

1. WP:ATD – "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
2. WP:IMPERFECT – "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."
3. WP:SOFIXIT – "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it."

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. The article can easily be improved, and it would take little more effort than has been spent trying to delete it. The PROD was clearly invalid, per WP:ATD. Pburka (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

  Reywas92's redirect is good, too. Pburka (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Beer_and_breweries_by_region#Argentina until you have something worthwhile. Reywas92^Talk 16:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Draftify, seems like a pretty obvious solution no? Put this unreferenced but likely notable not-even-a-stub into draftspace until it can be improved and turned into an actual article. Then it can be moved back into mainspace. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Beer_and_breweries_by_region#Argentina as per Reywas92 suggestion. The topic has potential for any editor willing to expand it and make it encyclopedic. In its current form it doesn't hold much value. Ajf773 (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Just need a little TLC. Broichmore (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep There are three points to be made here.
  • It is so notable that editors will be frightened off. There are cross links to :es:wiki, and essentially we are refering to a German speaking community, this is not an article that you can helicopter in and fixs. In fact the Spanish is pretty simple.
  • While this may have the word cerveza, bier, bière in the title we are deep into the politics of Catherine the Great and the 104 German villages along the Volga. A simple word like Pilsen has differing connotation if you are approaching from the north south, neighbouring countries. We are talkiing of the deacde when when the railways reached Buenos Aires and when Patagonia was annexed to Argentina.
  • While prodding has its value, I think it has to be done professionally- the notability test is- whether the article title is notable, the second test is a quick google to ascertain whether the sources are there- and that includes using Google.es, and here google.de.- the third test is to see whether the article has already been written in es:wiki. An article like this passes all the tests- if your language skill are not good enough the default is to walk on by. Yes it is tidy just to do a prod- but it has wasted a great deal of other peoples time. A quick deprod would do us all a favour. If you wish to discuss this with me- can I invite you share a beer in Bariloche- I pay for the beer, if you could just buy the air tickets.ClemRutter (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• KEEP Improvements made recently to the article (tnx User:Broichmore) to the article now make it worth keeping instead of just redirecting it elsewhere. Obviously a notable topic. Dream Focus 23:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Withdraw. The article is still low quality but the topic is notable and this has been improved sufficiently it is a valid stub. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Jamshid BayatTork

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. No WP:RS found. Kinu ^t/_c 01:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kinu ^t/_c 01:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Kinu ^t/_c 01:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - As per nom. Needs reliable sources. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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 Mesa#Geography. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

East Mesa, Arizona

East Mesa, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be nothing more than the eastern portion of Mesa, Arizona. It's not even clear that anyone thinks of it as an area with a name. Things are complicated by the many enclaves within the city limit, several of which are within the eastern area; but I can't find anything that identifies any of these as being "East Mesa". Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mesa#Geography which pretty well explains that the western portion of Mesa is known as Mesa while the eastern portion is east Mesa. I don't know what the GNIS location, from 1981, was meant to be. The coords given aren't in the center of present-day east Mesa; they are close to the eastern edge of Mesa and not actually in Mesa but in a county island. Regardless, today the term means Mesa east of Center St. MB 03:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mesa, as it could theoretically be a neighborhood in town or part of the outer limitys that is still considered "Mesa" even if technically that isn't the case. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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) buidhe 00:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Gospel Music Association

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Gospel Music Association
• Articles for deletion/Gospel Music Association (2nd nomination)

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

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

This article was just deleted today via AfD. A request was made at WP:RFUD to userfy the content, which I agreed to when the closing admin for the AfD did not object. I userfied the content, and it was quickly edited a little and turned around back into mainspace. I thought more would go into changing it. Sourcing does not appear super strong, and I do not want to be a party to an "end around" on the deletion process. So, this can only stay if a second AfD allows it to. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Just as last time. The discussion, with additional sources, about why it should never have been deleted is listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 10#Gospel Music Association, but in short, sources are present and its award itself makes it notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, just as last time, not all of the relevant projects have been informed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not every semi-related Wikiproject has to be informed do they? (I'm genuinely curious) --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• That was raised as part of the refund discussion, but certainly, the Christian Music project should have been notified. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Adamant1, in the deletion review you mentioned that the article should be vetted by people "who know what they're doing". Would not the Christian music WikiProject be one of the places to start to find those people? (FYI, I'm coming late to this discussion, after the first AfD, so I'm considering myself one of those "vetters").--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Draftify It to someone's userspace. Then restore it later when the sourcing is better and it has been properly reviewed for notability. Since the sourcing in the article just isn't there yet to meet WP:NCORP's notability standards. Drafting it is the only fair compromise between deleting it or potentially keeping a non-notable article. Plus, it is what people in the deletion review wanted before it was restored. If drafting isn't an option then Delete it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG have the same base criteria: significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can you please indicate how the cited sources are not multiple and independent and secondary, and that the coverage is not significant? The subject has dedicated entries in two separate encyclopedias, in addition to discussion in books and in at least one magazine article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

some of the "added" sourcing is just more referencing to the same sources that where already determined to be trivial. Which doesn't improve anything in the article or speak to notability. source #4, #5, #8 (all new sources) seem trivial. That leaves only 2 sources that might or might not be trivial and therefore count for notability. My guess is that they are trivial. Since the person who restored the article added other trivial sources (included more references to sources that had already been vetted in the original AfD). Also, 14 of the 20 references are to just three sources. Which seems like ref bombing. One of them, source #1, I know for a fact doesn't have enough in-depth coverage for three citations because I own the book. I'm pretty sure from research I did for the original AfD that the same goes for the Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music. I have zero reason to believe the other books that are being cited are any different (again, the restorer already added other trivial sources). On source #2 (an extract which can be found here) it seems the company is only mentioned in one paragraph and that the rest is about the GMA Awards. As I'm sure you know, notability isn't inherited. You can tell it's trivial anyway by what it's citing in the article "there are about 4,000 members worldwide", "The GMA was founded in 1964 to promote Gospel music", "The GMA held GMA Week (or GMA Music Week) around Nashville, Tennessee." blah blah blah Etc Etc. It's all pretty run of the mill stuff that doesn't live up to WP:NCORP. I'd 100% love to see a counter argument though. Again, draftify it and bring it back later when it's actually notable. There's zero reason not to. Unless you know it's not notable and will never come back if it is. Otherwise, what's the problem with drafting it so it can actually be sourced properly? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

My counter-argument is that the coverage is significant by the standards of WP:GNG, which is what WP:CORP points back to. I think the point of difference here is over what constitutes "trivial", and I would argue that the coverage is not trivial by the examples given in WP:GNG.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The standards are a little higher for articles about corporations or organizations. What's trivial for them aren't necessarily trivial in other cases. Things like membership numbers are definitely trivial whatever the article is about though. Personally, I think the more important thing is to judge the how in-depth the particular source is because we can nitpick what trivial means, but it's pretty clear when something does or doesn't contain in-depth coverage. None of the sources in this case are in-depth. Again, if it's notable what would be the problem with drafting it until the sourcing is better? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:NCORP specifically says "An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization" is an example of significant coverage, and this has entries in two different encyclopedias. Please also see the article as expanded, with more details of its history. So it meets WP:GNG and at least one additional criterion of WP:NCORP.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject of the article is substantively discussed in multiple independent reliable sources, four of which are cited in the article. In addition to those, you have this book and this encyclopedic entry. That puts it at six RSes that discuss the subject. I'm sure when you factor in more offline print media, there's a lot more, but 6 is plenty for establishing notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - The last RfC was handled terribly and was frankly nonsensical. As I said at the other page: Deletion discussion began on April 1 but the main WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music, was never notified, nor was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music or Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. In 10 minutes of research I found over 28,500 articles on Newspapers.com from 1969 to 2020, coverage in Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Billboard magazine, Close Harmony: A History of Southern Gospel, 6,110 hits in Google News and 472 in Google Scholar. All this took was 10 minutes. Even a modicum of research would have allowed the page to be improved with any of literally tens of thousands of reliable sources, but because the relevant editors were never notified the listing was barely discussed and closed as delete with little input. Toa Nidhiki05 03:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What exactly was nonsensical about the original AfD and which of the 28,500 newspaper articles have in-depth coverage that passes WP:NCORP? Or should we just take your word that they all do? Personally, I looked at a lot of them and they where all trivial. I'm pretty sure the other people who voted delete did their due diligence checking sources also. Despite your baseless accusations that we didn't. Like you would know anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You know, when you kick off your argument against notability by asking "which of the 28,500 newspaper articles . . ." you convince most reasonable editors that you really don't have a case. Face facts -- you did a piss-poor job of searching, and apparently didn't check Google Books (which shows coverage in Billboard going back decades) or Google Scholar (which shows, for example, coverage of race-centered disputes involving the GMA in an academic press book) at all. Learn from your mistakes -- this AFD is just an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to argue for anything. I just thought if you found in-depth articles I wasn't able to maybe you could provide them so we could add them to the article. What's piss poor and an embarrassment to Wikipedia is your un-constructive attitude. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)  

• Comment: I found another Billboard source. There very likely are more.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Again about the awards, not about the company. This is really tiring. People should have just respected the outcome of the original AfD. This one is more bias and slanted then the first one was. Now that it's already gone through a second AfD due to false claims of the first one not being a proper process, why should the outcome of this one be respected whatever it is and there not just be a third AfD etc etc.? I'm sure the keep people would throw a fit if there was another one. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am the editor who restored the article and added most of the additional sourcing currently in the page. I had the page draftified shortly after its deletion, racked it with a number of high-quality sources, and restored it in short order. I was not expecting the tidal wave of attention it has now gotten - I thought I was doing a simple job of article rescuing, just a few hours too late. I didn't even know a DRV had been opened when I did so. Given that the article now has references to three four other encyclopedias with articles on this institution, I guess I'm not sure I could ever meet Adamant's WP:HEY standard, but I think an article in its current state would probably never have been AfD'ed in the first place. Chubbles (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It was essentially there after you added the sources to it and restored the article. It definitely is now that more have been added. I just felt that they where a tad trivial and I would have liked to see the article expanded a little more in the process of adding more references. Which it seems like 3family6 has done. So, I'm mostly fine with it now. I still would have liked to have seen the process followed, but it is what it is. It's not on you that it wasn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep there looks to be plenty of references to show notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. An obviously notable subject with piles of substantive coverage. The arguments against notability were greiviously -- in particular, saying that the organization isn't notable, just the activities it engages in are, is absurd. Common sense is seriously missing from AFD these days. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Four different sources with the word "Encyclopedia" in the title indicates that the subject is encyclopedic. If you nitpick every source that someone adds, and make it clear that nothing they add will ever be sufficient for you, then their only option is to keep adding more sources and try to satisfy you. Then you say they're refbombing. This is not productive. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously notable. Those who called for deletion in the previous discussion obviously made no effort at WP:BEFORE. They should be ashamed of themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Obviously notable topic per GNG. As a niche subject, it's not hard to see why it languishes in such a bad state for so long. Hindsight is 20/20, but at least this article got a second chance through the review process. - BilCat (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps a snow close is appropriate per WP:HEY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong keep Very notable association and readily improvable. It's annual awards are highly regarded in Christian Contemporary Music circles. I only noticed the previous AfD of the article after the article's deletion. I would have objected to the deletion in the first place and vehemently if I had known about it. Thanks User:Walter Görlitz for his efforts in reviving the discussion. I second his request for closing as per WP:HEY. werldwayd (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I also only noticed the first AFD after the article's deletion, and would have supposed keeping it. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough knowledge of the topic to feel I could rescue it myself. Thanks also. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has plenty of sources reflecting its notableness, oh, and a big thankyou to the nominator (hi Muboshgu:)) for bringing this to afd so that there is now no doubt of its notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep This is a longstanding, major music association for Gospel music, reaching across many denominations. It has a Grove entry, fer cryin' out loud! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Sad to say that doesn't sway everybody. Chubbles (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep With entries in multiple encyclopedias, this looks super strong. Hallelujah! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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 to delete after extended time for discussion. This is, of course, without prejudice to any future nomination for deletion, if the article is not improved. BD2412 T 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Dorothea Nicolai

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

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

GNG fail. Lacks independent sourcing; I cannot find anything adequate. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. —OrestesLebt (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know. She was responsible for the costumes at three major places, Bayreuth, Salzburg also + ball there + exhibition there, and Zürich, [84], only: the costum designer gets the press coverage, and the one responsible for them actually made not. The article is way too detailed. This is good, Hamburg, notable performers. Here she even designed for the Salzburg Festival, 2006. Bayreuth + Salzburg, Berlin exhibition. Salzburg exhibition. The closer I look the more I think Keep, - just trim the article and add refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• keep per Gerda. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

For lack of participation this article could be be kept as "No consensus". There are severe notability issues with the article. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sourcing, with too much unsourced content (we call original research), the article so far fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE (no awards or being "cited by peers or successors"), and being "responsible for the costumes at three major places" is not a real justifiable criteria. There are many sources added above and I would need to examine all of them and not just count them as "but there are sources". I did check one source, "OPERAFASHION", that contains "The rose appeared on all the floral decorations of the festival, made of beautiful roses and other flowers in pastel colors, as well as on the aprons of the 48 debutantes, who wore outfits in perfect Austrian style by Dorothea Nicolai, head costume designer of the festival.", that may support content but just does not seem to be significant towards advancing notability. However, some may be more than just content supporting, pushing notability above the threshold required by WP:CREATIVE.

• See article talk page for more details (copying above sources there), as I came to this too late to effectively research it, and it can always be resubmitted. Otr500 (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 04:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras

Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible fancraft. List doesn't have third party sources in the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• To all editors, see related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep We have similar lists of various products. Boeing airliners, for example. In the world of photography, Canon is one of the leading manufacturers, and this article is useful in determining the level of functionality and quality we might expect from many of our images taken with Canon cameras. The higher-end models are used by professionals, for example, as we may discover by looking through the EXIF in the image file. As information for our readers, choosing the best camera consistent with need, quality, usability, and budget is a common task, and I would rather Wikipedia provide an impartial non-commercial source of useful information than other sites full of adverts and associate commissions. Few of our readers are likely to be in the market for a jumbo jet, but many are interested inn the differences between the various models. We're an encyclopaedia, we present information, we do that job well, and this is more of the same. --Pete (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports, and WP:ITSUSEFUL is a lousy argument to make. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a product comparison service. Ajf773 (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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) buidhe 00:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Loudoun Valley Estates, Virginia

Loudoun Valley Estates, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although it's a CDP, I found zero independent coverage for this large housing development aside from real estate listings and various sites that source location data from various government databases. The only source is a census table, which would fail WP:NGEO: "This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability]]". –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I still hold that CDPs meet the requirement of GEOLAND as being federally recognized places. Not sure you looked for coverage that hard, because this isn't independent but useful. Though This, this, this, this, this, this, and this qualify as independent and useful. I could go on. We don't need to delete everything with "Estates" or "Corner" in the title. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep It's a housing development sure, but there's a distinction we need to make between a generic housing development and a housing development large/notable enough that it "becomes" a place. That's what happened here. There's a "Loudoun Valley Estates III" mentioned in one of those articles, that would be an absolute delete if it had an article on it, but it seems clear this is referred to as a place now. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Notable as a legally recognized, populated place. See WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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) buidhe 00:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Bull Run Mountain Estates, Virginia

Bull Run Mountain Estates, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although this large housing development is a CDP and appears on topo maps, our WP:NGEO guideline specifically excludes "maps and various tables" from establishing notability. Aside from real estate listings, I found two sources that mention the name: A brief mention that it was used in the 2010 census [85] and something about a severe storm that's likely based on map data [86]. This level of coverage is insufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep CDPs are generally presumed notable. In addition to the two sources you got, I was able to find [87] [88] [89] [90]. Definitely notable community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak delete keep, idk I'm still conflicted on CDPs at the moment, having made comments elsewhere, but I the idea that the primary source [4] of an HOA's bylaws counts toward notability is ridiculous, it should never even be used as a source in an article generally. The source [6] is also a primary source merely saying that it's a subdivision in an article where certain insects live without encyclopedic content, and source [3] is mundane local news, which refers to the area in general, not limited to the subdivision or the CDP. Bull Run Mountains already mentions the Estates and the fact people live there can be expanded on with the WaPo source, but it is fairly decent as a local-interest article. Reywas92^Talk 01:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep A populated place that's referred to by the name of the development, as opposed to an article about a housing development, see my Loudoun Valley Estates !keep vote for a similar analogy. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep As a legally recognized, populated place. Worth noting that these CDPs are often not completely coterminous with the HOA boundaries despite sharing the same name - I live in the CDP of Lake Barcroft, Virginia but am not part of the Lake Barcroft HOA. Smartyllama (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Skyland Estates, Virginia

Skyland Estates, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Although it's a CDP, this housing development has no significant coverage beyond government maps and tables which are specifically excluded from the WP:NGEO guideline. The only sources that I could find were real estate listings and an article about a fire that mentions it in passing as a "development in Linden". This is insufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep CDPs are presumed notable as government info can furnish at least a decent article. In addition to the source mentioned above, I also found [91] [92] [93]. This calls it "an established community high above the Blue Ridge Mountains". Gunfire is prohibited here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is run-of-the-WP:MILL coverage of a real estate transaction that describes it as a "subdivision". This is a different Skyland Estates in Columbia, South Carolina. This also describes it as a "subdivision". I know there are several opinions on the inherent notability of CDPs, but none of these sources are anything more than a passing mention except for the community website. –dlthewave ☎ 23:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per dlthwave's nom and subsequent comment. "Presumed" notable doesn't mean "must be" notable. This one is not. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It's a populated, census designated place, which easily passes WP:GEOLAND. Worst case should be merged with Linden, but I don't support that. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, why do say a CDP "easily passes" GEOLAND? It's a census tract and a housing development, both of which are excepted from GEOLAND? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Populated? Check. Legally recognised? By the census, if it doesn't have any formal legal status. It's not a census tract, it's a census-designated place, which require the community's name be "recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community" (not "a name developed solely for planning or other purposes") which should be enough to pass WP:GEOLAND, which should be and has been a very easy notability hurdle to clear. Otherwise this unincorporated area where people live wouldn't be associated to a place with an article. The US makes it a bit squishy with their land use planning rules unfortunately... SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

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.