Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 July	14 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The "delete" side argues that the sources provided are insufficient, and the "keep" side does not attempt to rebut this. Sandstein 10:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex Bristol (group)[edit]

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

Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. From search, results are very scanty, the ones found are not reliable. Sources provided in the page make no mention of the company apart from this one that has few mentions of the company, the rest are listings on Company House website. Lapablo (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, linked to in entry, also mentions the company: [1] The companies own site, is this: [2] And on the Owners Linked In page. [3] (this entry added by Dhutch) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non notable company. Devokewater (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero WP:SIGCOV on this company. Some mentions, per the RS in the article, but are really WP:MILL from their deals. HAve a feeling that this article was not written in good faith, and is a platform to raise issues on the company (i.e. a hit-piece). Regardless, fail of NCORP. Britishfinance (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A news search brought up some hits such as here, here, here and here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to discuss sources recently brought forth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had closed this, evidently very very shortly after Ritchie333 brought some sources up for discussion. Pinging all participants Lapablo, Coolabahapple, Devokewater, Britishfinance. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem 78.26. I had seen most of Ritchie333's hits but felt they were more MILL pieces in mostly trade publictions on deals that the company was involved in, and with minimal discussion about the company except to mention their name (i.e. hard to build an article about the company from them). Running through them:

#1 Trade Only Today, trade magazine that only mentions their name once as a buyer of a yacht company, Fairline.

#2 Yachting and Boating World, trade magaine on same deal as above on Fairline, and more like a press release.

#3 The Telegraph, proper RS but the article is about the same deal as above, and only gives the company passing mention; really about the collapse of Fairline.

#4 Furniture News, trade magazine press release from another funiture-related deal.

From my perspective, these are MILL pieces. I could find no decent RS doing even one proper SIGCOV on the company per NCORP, just mentions in mostly trade publicatons from deals. Couldn't see how we could yet construct an article on the company from these. Others may disagree with me however. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the ping, i haven't actually participated in this afd, i just fixed up Dhutch's entry that had been affecting the 27 june afd log. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, before bringing to AFD my concerns were exactly the same as Britishfinance summary of the sources. It's just not enough. Lapablo (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thank you Ritchie333 for highlighting these sources, however I'm in agreement with Britishfinance, the company is not notable and should be deleted. Regards --Devokewater @ 10:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is “not enough”? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete this article, and a consensus to keep post improvements by Spicy (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ambroise Beach Provincial Park[edit]

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

To my opinion plain advertising. Most of the article is not about the park but about the campsite. WP:TNT The Banner talk 22:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep, or redirect to List of provincial parks in Manitoba. Provincial-class parks are the type of topic we should have articles about whenever possible, per WP:GEOLAND — obviously GEOLAND explicitly states that they can still be redirected to a related topic if they prove impossible to source better than just technical primary source verification that they exist, but they are exactly the kind of topic for which we should be at least trying to maintain standalone articles. As written, the article isn't really such an extreme WP:NOTADVERT violation that deletion on those grounds would be warranted — any advertorialism here is quite mild, and can be easily dealt with through the normal editing process, and other sources do exist for it. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the park to evaluate whether there's enough sourcing to get it over the bar for a standalone article, so I'm fine with either solution, but even if it doesn't prove sourceable enough to keep a standalone article it still clearly merits a redirect to a related topic. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. I added more information about the park and trimmed the worst of the WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE content. I haven't been able to find a ton of sources, but IMO there is enough to justify a pass of WP:GEOLAND and a stand-alone article. Our standard for notability is WP:NEXIST and it seems improbable that a provincial park would not have more coverage somewhere, even if it is locked away in a dusty government file. Spicy (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep This is about the first time that I see a statement of Bearcat to the tune of (...) any advertorialism here is quite mild, and can be easily dealt with through the normal editing process, (...) is followed by a sincere improvement/de-spamming of the article. Not by Bearcat, by the way, as he usually just slams down the statement to keep spam. So I give credit to User:Spicy for his work. And I request a speedy close as keep now it is turned in a normal article. The Banner talk 10:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I diagree that the article as nominated required TNT. Since the nomination, it has been cleaned up showing that TNT was not needed, just simple editing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Prakash[edit]

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

notability not established, see arguments of previous AfD, they are still valid Ysangkok (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hacker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much has changed since the last AFD. Still fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 19:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per all of the above Spiderone 09:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Yadav (Author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Poor refs -- all sources are from the same PR Business Wire story is you look closely enough (WP:NOTPR). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer in the field of business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete PROMO.--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional spam. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam Spiderone 11:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, promotional. Alex-h (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very PROMO-y and non-notable person. -- Dane ^talk 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Life of Riley (British TV series). (non-admin closure) DMySon 03:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Life of Riley characters[edit]

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

non-notable list Prisencolin (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Life of Riley (TV series). Ajf773 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a redirect. postdlf (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Life of Riley (British TV series), which currently just links to this list for its character section and can easily incorporate it. This is so obvious a solution that it's clear the nom did not follow WP:BEFORE or consider WP:ATD (or complete their sentence). postdlf (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Life of Riley (British TV series) - Merging is actually not necessary. While the "Characters" section there is just a link to here, it actually is not needed. The "Cast" section just above there includes the full character and cast list already. Since it looks like every character/actor on this list is already present in that section, there is nothing that needs to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:ATD-M to Life of Riley (TV series) Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE Life_of_Riley_(British_TV_series)#Characters Dream Focus 17:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, what exactly are we merging here? The character/actor list is already present on the main article. The only thing missing is the info in the "Duration" column, and in all but one case, the duration is just the entire series, making it a bit pointless. Rorshacma (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Life of Riley (British TV series) - Nice tables, but the information was already on the show's article. — Maile (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PDFO[edit]

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

Article about a software recently released; the article does not show any notability but a link to a page listing it together with other analogous software. User created the same article on it.wiki, es.wiki, fr.wiki (in all three it has been deleted), zh.wiki and de.wiki.

The {{proposed deletion}} template was removed first by an IP editor, then put again by me (for which I apologize, I am not used to en.wiki's customs) and then removed again by the authorDr Zimbu (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments of Zhangzk

I am the one who created the article on en.wiki, zh.wiki, and de.wiki. However, different from being claimed, I did not create the fr.wiki article. Whoever created it, un grand merci. Unfortunately, the fr.wiki page has been lost due to a speedy deletion that is unjustifiable. It is a pity as the page was well edited.

First of all, thank Dr Zimbu for the efforts to maintain the high quality of Wikipedia, which I do appreciate.

The page should be kept. Here are the reasons.

This is not really a "software recently released". It does nothing but collecting Michael J. D. Powell's original code (COBYLA, UOBYQA, NEWUOA, BOBYQA, LINCOA). The code has existed for a long time with broad applications.

The cited reference "Decision Tree for Optimization Software" ^[1] is not just "a page listing it together with other analogous software" but an authoritative page maintained by a leading expert in computational optimization (Dr. Hans D. Mittelmann ^[2], Full Professor at School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University^[3]) that makes recommendations about optimization software. See "Benchmarking Optimization Software - a (Hi)Story"^[4] for more information. Anyone in related research areas should be clear about this. See also the list of Derivative-Free Optimization solvers maintained by Prof. S. Le Digabel ^[5], a leading expert in derivative-free optimization.

The software is cited in articles published in reputable journals,e.g., Journal of Global Optimization ^[6]. If deemed necessary, emails can be provided upon request in order to prove that more researchers/engineers are citing/using this software, but it cannot be done here since emails contain personal information.

The software has been proved useful to the research community, which can be inferred from the download statistics. See, e.g., PePy ^[7] and the download count recorded on PDFO homepage ^[8]. It is worth noting that PDFO is not a piece of software for daily activities like online shopping or distant meeting --- this software is for scientific research. There is a scientific research project behind each download, so even 100 downloads are indeed a lot --- this software has more than 1000. In addition, some online discussions about related algorithms actually link to this Wikipedia page ^[9].

The software has been covered in reputable third-party public media. For example, those who know Chinese may read the last section of The Optimized Life of a "Treasure Mathematician" ^[10]. Surely, this is not an article published in a newspaper or broadcasted in a radio program, but it seems that we are not anymore in the era that public media means only newspapers and radios. The information on Zhihu ^[11] and its homepage ^[12] show clearly that it is indeed a reputable and professional public media. These references are relevant since it is mentioned that PDFO has a zh.wiki page.

Thank you very much.

^ Mittelmann, Hans D. "Decision Tree for Optimization Software". Retrieved 2020-07-03.
^ "Homepage of Prof. Dr. Hans D. Mittelmann". Retrieved 2020-07-04.
^ "Arizona State University expertise finder database". Retrieved 2020-07-04.
^ Mittelmann, Hans D. (2020). "Benchmarking Optimization Software - a (Hi)Story". SN Oper. Res. Forum. Vol. 1.
^ "Prof. S. Le Digabel's Derivative-Free Optimization (DFO) Course Website". Retrieved 2020-07-04.
^ Xi, Min; Sun, Wenyu; Chen, Yannan; Sun, Hailin (2020). "A derivative-free algorithm for spherically constrained optimization". Journal of Global Optimization. 76: 841–861. Retrieved 2020-07-03.
^ "PyPI Download Statistics by PePy". Retrieved 2020-07-04.
^ "PDFO Download Count". Retrieved 2020-07-04.
^ "More Descent, Less Gradient". Retrieved 2020-07-04.
^ "专访: 宝藏数学家的优化人生 --- 知乎专栏「运筹OR帷幄」大数据时代的运筹学". Retrieved 2020-07-04.
^ "知乎专栏「运筹OR帷幄」大数据时代的运筹学". Retrieved 2020-07-04.
^ "运筹OR帷幄机器之心". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

Delete:WP:CITESPAM. Add Powell, M. J. D pages almost in the article, please also check all edits of this user. Willy1018(talk) 01:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thank you for the checking. Sorry if I understood something wrongly, but these algorithms are among the most well-known works of Michael J. D. Powell. Why is it inappropriate to link to Michael's page? Thanks again. Zhangzk (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michael J. D. Powell or Derivative-free optimization - presumably the latter. There is nothing notable about this package; it's just a software implementation of methods discussed elsewhere. No reason why this software shouldn't be covered in context. The article tellingly spends 3/4 of the text and refs on background and generalities; there's no case for a separate article here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Elmidae for the comments. Even though I do not agree that "the article tellingly spends 3/4 of the text and refs on background and generalities", I made some revisions to make it sound less like that. The notability of Powell's software is quite clear from the references mentioned above and a google search. Talking about merging, I would say it is more reasonable to keep this page while merging pages like COBYLA, UOBYQA, etc. into it. Thanks. Zhangzk (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note you already "voted" keep above, no need to "vote" keep twice (you may use eg. "Comment" instead). Pavlor (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Thanks. Pavlor (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some bundling of those articles might actually be a really good idea - not sure why they ended up with articles of their own. But I don't believe that should be under the name of that package, unless that is the ONLY implementation(which is probablynot the case?) Still looks as if the best place for all that would be the existing Derivative-free optimization. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Pavlor for the correction. Derivative-free optimization is a vast field. If one merges the mentioned pages into derivative-free optimization, then many many other pages would be merged as well and we would end up with a huge page of derivative-free optimization. It is like to merge all pages on various Indo-European languages into one page. This software is the only implementation that synthesizes all of Powell's solvers with a uniform interface. Maybe I should explain more about these solvers: a person that is not in this field may think that each of Powell's solvers takes at most hours of coding, so anyone can implement her/his own version easily. (Un)Fortunately, that's not the case. Each of them took Powell years to implement, leading to tens of thousands of lines of Fortran code. Each of them is a masterpiece of Powell (for the role of Powell in numerical optimization, see his en.wiki page; in short, he was a founding father). That's why the solvers are powerful and impactive, and that's why this software is not unnotable. Thanks. Zhangzk (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Looking through these individual algorithms, they are sizable but could well be bundled. As a reader I would certainly prefer to have these in one place rather than spread among half a dozen articles. And that bundle would make an obvious place to discuss the software too. How about derivative-free optimization algorithms, with subsections for TOLMIN, COBYLA, etc., and a final one for PDFO? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Elmidae for the suggestion. However, as I mentioned, derivative-free optimization is a vast field, including numerous algorithms. I dare not create a page called derivative-free optimization algorithms covering only Powell's solvers. No ... that will definitely invoke a lot of enemies (lol). Thanks anyway. Zhangzk (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the sources appear to contribute towards WP:GNG. In fact, most of them do not even mentioned the software suite PDFO. On the whole, the subject seems adjacent to notable topics: Powell himself is notable, as may be some of the algorithms he wrote. But the notability of this particular software is not evidenced by the sources (let me know if any of these assessments look incorrect).

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
PDFO.net	official website of the PDFO project	value not understood	value not understood	✘ No
Decision Tree for Optimization Software		~ personal website, but author is an expert in the field	long list of software with single sentence on PDFO	✘ No
"A view of algorithms for optimization without derivatives"	Powell is the author of algorithms comprising PDFO	value not understood	value not understood	✘ No
Conn, Scheinber, Vicente Introduction to Derivative-Free Optimization			"PDFO" is not mentioned in the book	✘ No
Audet & Harre Derivative-Free and Blackbox Optimization			"PDFO" is not mentioned in the book	✘ No
Larson, Menickelly, Wild "Derivative-free optimization methods"			"PDFO" is not mentioned in the journal article	✘ No
UOBYQA paper	another publication of Powell	value not understood	value not understood	✘ No
NEWUOA paper	another publication of Powell	value not understood	value not understood	✘ No
BOBYQA paper	another publication of Powell	value not understood	value not understood	✘ No
A Direct Search Optimization Method...	another publication of Powell	value not understood	value not understood	✘ No
"A derivative-free algorithm for spherically constrained optimization"			"PDFO" is not mentioned in journal article	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I also object to all the mergers proposed above. This is a single software implementation of Powell's algorithms. Since he was not involved in the project at all, it would be inappropriate to merge it to his article. Merging to Derivative-free optimization is also too general: there are dozens of implementations of derivative-free optimization algorithms, this is just one of them. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ben raises many good points. The article fails to pass WP:GNG, and the author's arguments are irrelevant to notability. Note: the author of the article also appears to be the owner of the linked GitHub repo, so there may be a conflict of interest here. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VicStix[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:MILL. Promotional article for non-notable youth field hockey program. No SIGCOV anywhere. May have been discontinued 11 years ago. Rogermx (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with OP. I could not find a single reference to VicStix via a ProQuest database search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers. Cabrils (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All links so old they have gone to webarchive. Teraplane (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 1. Sandstein 10:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borneo (Wolfgang Gartner and Aero Chord song)[edit]

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

Song did not chart nor was nominated for a major award. Fails WP:NSONG. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 6 references, which is very bare minimum. I would say keep if it had charted, got an award, or did anything of significance, but it did none of those. Micro (Talk) 06:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:XY. Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't know whether these sources are WP:ROUTINE or not, but many are indeed in-depth coverage of this particular song which would make it satisfy WP:BASIC (NSONG is a presumption, not an automatic pass/fail (none of the SNGs are). If something fails NSONG but meets GNG then it should be kept, and if something seemingly meets NSONG but there's no coverage then it should be deleted). Per WP:DIDNTWIN, there's no reason to exclude anything because it didn't win an award or something. Saying that 6 sources are a "bare minimum" is clearly a misapplying of policy, GNG requiring only "multiple" (which is usually interpreted as two or three good ones). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or redirect to Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 1): Changed my vote, per RandomCanadian. I checked the sources and they seem to be reliable since they talk about the song. I believe the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there are sources but they are from EDM-dedicated websites which I doubt the reliability of. Here is one of the paragraphs from edmtunes: "Who’s ready to get tribal? Good! Because that’s exactly what sort of grooving you’ll be doing to the latest collaboration from Wolfgang Gartner and Aero Chord titled, ‘Borneo.’ Seriously, this latest banger sound like it was produced in the depths of the jungle and will most definitely turn your late night ragers from a regular dance party to an all-out dance expedition!" What? What I'm saying is, these seem like websites that just post links to songs and hype up artists/optimize search engine hits. They also have places for submissions where you can promote your songs: "As EDM Sauce has become one of the leading dance music publications, our writers are experts in the music industry and are actively seeking out the future of EDM." and "EDMTunes prides itself on being an electronic dance music website that consistently provides its readers with the finest records and breaking news on the scene. Our writers are experts in the music industry and actively seek out the next generation of producers that will lead the electronic movement." and "Looking to promote with We Rave You? Whether you’re an artist, record label, festival/event organiser, product/app owner, or anything else, we can help!" I just don't trust these sources and... neither should you. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 02:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headrott[edit]

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

Completely non-notable local band that does not even assert significance. I CSDed it, but an IP removed the speedy tag. Note that "Headrot" (single t) is a slightly more notable (but still probably not Wikipedia notable) band founded in the 90s from Rhode Island. In contrast, "Headrott" is a 2019 band from Quincy, Illinois, sources online appear to be mostly their Facebook ([4]) which has 37 followers. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 18:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, --Devokewater (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While being conscious of the creator's comments on the article's talk page, and not wanting to bite new editors, the band simply doesn't have the coverage or significance to pass WP:BAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft send the article to draft so that the editor can submit the article when it is ready. As Dom Kaos has siad we do not want to bite the newcomers. The editor should ask for help in formatting references and attributing. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incubating in draft is appropriate for material on subjects with potential for a Wikipedia article (e.g. on notable subjects that are written in a manner not congruent to our guidelines or for articles that fail notability at present but for which there is a reasonable likelihood they will become notable in the near future). This particular subject lacks such potential, there are no sources here, and moving to draft will waste the time of all those involved, including the creator. As a a constructive note to the creator, this band may be appropriate to list on other sites such as Encyclopaedia Metallum (metal-archives). --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search resulted in nothing to support notability for the band either in the way of WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. There is nothing to draftify with this as there's nothing to the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this band doesn't even have an album. Second Skin (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to fix up the references, but it looks like they were social media links, possibly two videos of the band on YouTube, and what after doing some research suggests were four shows they were in. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpesh Kotadia[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No credible citations are available. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone 09:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources that are currently in the article are based on the same press release, the language in each duplicates each other, and is remarkably positive towards the topic. A search of Google News produced at least something different regarding amusement parks, but there is no in-depth coverage of the topic. I found nothing in Google Books. I found nothing in JSTOR. Therefore my WP:BEFORE search indicates that WP:GNG is not met, nor is any other SNG criteria. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aabroo (1956 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (non-WP:RS) since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search failed to reveal the plot, let alone provide any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be nice if we could get an agreement on whether films go in Media and Music or Fictiona and the Arts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photofy (app)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Most of the sources cited either aren't reliable or they don't give significant coverage. For instance [5], [6], [7], [8] are all published in and around the same time (2014). hence no enduring notability per WP:NTEMP. Plus all of them are likely paid reviews of the app. Other citations barely mention the app, like [9], and [10] and [11]. - Harsh (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that the only in-depth coverage of the app is mainly brief, glowing reviews that read like paid advertisements. No indications that the software is notable within the reviews, either. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the app aside from an article from AdroidGuys. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search brought up no coverage , fails WP:GNG. Bingobro (Chat) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aankh Ka Nasha (1956 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a passing mention in a biography of the actress Helen, merely confirming that she'd appeared in it, and confirmation that the film is based on the play Aankh ka Nasha; nothing in-depth at all. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is time we purge Wikipedia of articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesu Segun London[edit]

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

Non-notable brand, article is product of possible UPE. The sources given do not show significant, independent and reliable coverage. Some of the mentions are just trivial (eg Vogue, New York), others are mentions in a conversation (BBC News Africa). Cannot find coverage to meet WP:GNG with some quick digging. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion-only article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Engramo English[edit]

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

Non-notable new software; links to press releases and blog posts, not substantive coverage in reliable sources. I suspect it's just too soon by far. Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: There's an ongoing discussion in the article's Talk page. Linking it so as not to duplicate it/lead the same discussion in two different places. SeriousSamIAm (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – robertsky (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not passing GNG. There should be more reliable sources covering the subject. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hongsy (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anjaan (1956 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search failed to reveal even the plot, there was no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is way past time we stopped allowing articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Withdrawn. convinced by the outstanding arguments of Mr. Gerard and Mr. Easter (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghash.io[edit]

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

Not notable because only has passing mention in mainstream media, and only because of the controversy (which was a news story, doesn't mean it warrants an article) Ysangkok (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - extensively cited to mainstream RSes - David Gerard (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage looks more than extensive enough to establish wiki-notability. Saying it only got attention "because of the controversy" is like saying it's only notable for the reason that it is notable. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noise In Your Eye[edit]

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

Not notable. Source 2 is not reliable, independent and significant coverage. Sources 3 and 4, PopMatters and Progarchives, don't mention the subject. Besides, PopMatters seems to be borderline for reliability per RSN, so it'd say it's probably not acceptable for notability.[12] Progarchives is unreliable per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES and RSN. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Chivers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pennie. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator has good points about reliable sources or lack thereof, but I will add that this article is historically inaccurate as well. It says that Noise In Your Eye released two albums, The Adventures Of and In the Moment, but those are actually albums by the Michael Giles Mad Band in which these two guys were members of that band, not a duo under a distinct name. The list of personnel in this article, which by the way contains some huge names, are not members of Noise In Your Eye but are instead the various guest stars on those two Michael Giles albums. The two members of the duo, Chivers and Pennie, have already had their own WP articles deleted, and in this one they are being promoted under a distinct group name that has no credits or media coverage of its own, and the article tries to give them credit for someone else's albums on which they merely appeared as individuals. The article was created by someone called Chivchogs, which per WP:DUCK may well be Chivers in self-promotional mode again. This one is particularly desperate and shameless. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable band. They have a cool name though. Popmatters is actually a reliable source. Prog Archives isn't indeed. I also did not find any RS. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Close Enough#Episodes. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Close Enough episodes[edit]

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

Close Enough#Episodes exits. This list adds nothing new. - Harsh (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Close Enough#Episodes. If that article ever gets too long, you can split it out again. Dream Focus 15:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad habit. Unnecessary and wasteful. Some unneeded redirects - "Topics that can easily be found with a search" WP:COSTLY. - Harsh (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHEAP and WP:COSTLY are both essays, people giving opposite personal opinions in them concerning redirects. Wikipedia:Redirect is an editing guideline. When I search for episodes of a show I always type in "List of" name of the show and "episodes". A redirect works best here, no harm in having it. Dream Focus 16:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per to Close Enough#Episodes. WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dream Focus and per WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per everyone. Ajf773 (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT, Per above, redirect to Close Enough#Episodes. Alex-h (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Makes sense to redirect to the article with an episode list. -- Dane ^talk 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to World Short Track Speed Skating Championships. Text about the cancellation can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 World Short Track Speed Skating Championships[edit]

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

My attempt to speedy redirect this to World Short Track Speed Skating Championships was challenged, so starting full AfD as suggested. This event didn't happen, and as such there is not significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The current article sums up all that can be said about this "event": a host was chosen, it got postponed, and then it got cancelled. There is no way that this non event passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in case it isn't clear, I think we should just redirect to World Short Track Speed Skating Championships. Because it's a plausible redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This event didn't happen and does not have significant coverage. Everything in this article can be covered in a single paragraph within the World Short Track Speed Skating Championships article.Tracland (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I was the user who contested the speedy deletion/redirection since I felt a world championships was significant enough to warrant at least a discussion. If nobody else thinks we should keep it, I'll accept deletion/redirection as long as (part of) the text is moved to World Short Track Speed Skating Championships and the redirect is kept in Category:Sports events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic with some dozens of other redirects (of similarly deleted/redirected pages of similarly cancelled sport competitions). - FakirNL (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary, (the closest I can find is "WP:NOTBUILT", but it is essentially the same principle) and it doesn't depend on an event happening. Articles about previous annual editions of the championship often have less prose than this one. Additionally, nobody could reasonably argue that an international top level sports championship would not be notable; and because it was cancelled makes it an unusual occurrence which would be valuable information to our readers. Anyway, GNG appears to be met as there is coverage in multiple sources; eg. CBC; Strait Times; Speed Skating Canada (arguably somewhat a niche source, but they are not the organizers of the event so yes they are independent); YNA; NBC;... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it needs to be expanded but it is worth keeping. It is notable enough, and has information. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are articles on 1916 Summer Olympics, 1940 Winter Olympics, 1940 Summer Olympics (and 1940 Summer Olympics torch relay), 1944 Winter Olympics and 1944 Summer Olympics -- all cancelled. (And if the 2020 Summer Olympics are ultimately cancelled, there's no way that article will be deleted.) The Olympics are, of course, far more notable than the World Short Track Speed Skating Championships. Gildir (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable event. I am sure the nominator failed to search sources in Korean and elsewhere, in regards to the cancellation. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete checked the articles listed by RandomCanadian, but most of them are not significant coverage and only mention the cancelled event in passing. Fails WP:NEVENT. (t · c) buidhe 09:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect The encyclopedia probably should not be filled with cancelled events. So this is WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NEVENT. A redirect to World Short Track Speed Skating Championships is possible per WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term, I would encourage delete !votes above to consider WP:ATD as it seems like a pretty obvious case. Smartyllama (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge & redirect) – no substantial non-routine coverage, so seems to clearly fail GNG & NEVENT; a classic example of TOOSOON where all verifiable content can be summarised in a single sentence. Merge & redirect could be useful to the main article where the cancellation is mentioned and could be expanded by addition of a one-liner. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Adventist Health. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Simi Valley[edit]

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

I'm not finding anything notable about this local hospital. It only has one source in the article, which is extremely trivial, and I can't find anything else from a search that is either in-depth or would otherwise pass WP:NCORP. Let alone WP:GNG. Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Adventist Health. Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above user. Bvatsal61 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Adventist Health article seems to be the most logical move for the multiple entries for this. -- Dane ^talk 19:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Advertising Self-Regulatory Council#Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program. Sandstein 10:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic retailing self-regulation program[edit]

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

While there are enough sources to establish notability ([13][14] for example), the article in my opinion is a pretty awful mix of WP:PROMO and WP:NOTGUIDE. In my opinion it's bad enough to WP:TNT. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Advertising_Self-Regulatory_Council#Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program, where there is already a section. There's enough detail here to warrant a fairly careful merge, for example, its evident parent organization Electronic Retailing Association shutting down in June 2018. --Lockley (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Showbiz411[edit]

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

News and film review website. Unable to find any significant coverage whatsoever; certainly nothing to indicate WP:GNG or WP:NWEB are met. Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie, California[edit]

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

Yet another isolated passing siding, now removed. Not a town. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was there a name change? [15], is it a small village there? Govvy (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Different county. The one in the story is in Marin County, halfway across the state from Lassen County. Mangoe (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see any evidence it exists. There's definitely nobody living there now, the coordinates are just for some scrub next to a railway line. Possibly there used to be something there but unless we can say what we shouldn't have an article on it. Hut 8.5 18:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, --Devokewater (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that there is no evidence of notability for this. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a placename that never rose to notability. --Lockley (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horned Almighty[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danish black metal band. I think they are not notable for Wikipedia. While I have found some album reviews / interviews, they are on blog-like sites. Other than those, the rest of the results are the standard databases, social media pages, streaming service entries and retail sites. The article is also horribly sourced, with primary/unreliable sites like Metal Archives, their official site, Myspace and Facebook. The cited Allmusic page is not about the band, it just takes you to the main page of Allmusic (which is most likely an indicator that the band itself does not have a page with a written biography on the site, just a page with trivial listings such as their discography and their musical style - in that case Allmusic is not a reliable source). It does not have an article on the Danish Wikipedia either. So I think this band is non-notable. Scarlet Records is a notable label, but I don't think every band that is signed to this label are notable. There might be reliable sources in Danish but I don't speak Danish. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Looks like they have at least 2 albums on a label, but it doesn't seem to be a major label. The album pages should also be nominated for deletion. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, fails WP:GNG and NBAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charles Bukowski#Black Sparrow years. There's not quite consensus to delete, but also no real enthusiasm for keeping. The redirect to where this is mentioned in the main article is a compromise. The article can be restored if better sources are found. Sandstein 10:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Tough Mother[edit]

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

Non-notable DVD, no significant coverage by independent sources (sources in article are the official website and a personal blog), it appears that the events that the DVD covers might be notable and deserve mention on the poets article, but this DVD collection does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 10:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 13:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I could not find sources to establish notability to warrant a standalone article. No objection to mention of this under articles of broader scopes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep The film stars Charles Bukowski, a notable actor, and the sources aren't really that bad. It could definitely benefit from more and better sources, but I am a bit inclined to give it a benefit of the doubt. Perhaps also draftify and re-source. Ambrosiawater (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Location meets GEOLAND, and a necessary clean up of the article can be handled outside of AfD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baragam[edit]

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

Lack of sources well as fails WP:V and WP:GNG. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 13:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 13:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly exists and is a recognised village. We keep all officially recognised settlements per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have found this village in 2011 census, which clearly establishes this as a village meriting an article. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that disambiguation is going to be in order as there is another Baragam in a different region which collects most of the hits for this place name. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the subject matter is worthy, the article is written so poorly that it should not be on Wikipedia. It does not follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, has numerous typos on every line indicating that the writer is not familiar with the basic rules of the English language, and is vastly under-referenced to the point of not being trustworthy. Articles like this one are the type that give Wikipedia a bad reputation. Ira Leviton (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup. All we're here to do is assess the notability of the topic, not the quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an actual place and seems to meet notability guidelines. As stated above, AfD is not cleanup. -- Dane ^talk 19:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 07:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LP Duo[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Some minor coverage e.g. bbc ref. Supposed to have won many prizes, but they seem non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as they do have some reliable sources coverage such as the BBC and have also released on a major label Universal, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BAND due to awards and competition. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Dunnt717 (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn. Seems to be notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Book of Jubilees#Content. Consensus to not keep. Choosing Book of Jubilees as target because this topic is mentioned there. Redirect target can be canged if needed. Sandstein 10:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angels of Sanctification[edit]

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

Article very briefly details a specific hierarchy of angel referenced in a Jewish text considered non-canonical by the majority of sects of Judaism. I could find no sources that specifically explores these angels or their wider context in any legitimate theological or academic sense. Article has had no substantive contributions for 14 years, and references no sources. I am not aware of any notability exceptions specifically for religious concepts or figures, the closest being this project talk page. Should be deleted for failing WP:N and WP:RS. Alternatively, could be merged into Angel of the Lord, similar to a similar article at [[16]]. ƒin (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angel. According to the sources, angels of sanctification are also called angels of glory, a link also which redirects to Angel. The latter article is fully sourced, unlike this one. Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete or add more sources. No sources are present. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge / Redirect to Angel - there are no meaningful sources in the article and a Google search turned up nothing more to add. Whatever material can be backed up with reliable and verifiable sources should be considered for addition to the article for Angel, as appropriate, before turning this article into a redirect. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Book of Jubilees, the only source of this angelic trivia. --Lockley (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Book of Jubilees or a similar article. Ambrosiawater (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Laoutides[edit]

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

just as before, Zachary Laoutides isn't notable. The awards are not notable and being nominated doesn't equate to notability. Additionally, I can find no in depth independent coverage - the sources in the article are unreliable or puff pieces and searching newspapers and archives gives nothing better. Praxidicae (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can you elaborate as to why he is not notable and what the finding was that allowed a survival from the subject's first nomination?--Mpen320 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article did not survive the first nomination. But it was later created again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I agree basically with what Praxidicae said. @Mpen320 see our general notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a contributor to this site since 2011. I am aware of the policy. I don't think that the nominator made a vague case as to why it should be deleted. I really don't have an opinion on whether or not this stays on Wikipedia.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Awards may not be notable and being nominated may not equate to notability, that much is true. However, being the founder of the first Hispanic film studio in Chicago and the Midwest is. The article/video interviews (references ABC 7 Chicago and WGN Chicago – Hispanic Heritage Month) visibly discuss and acclaim this subject unquestionably, as does the other Chicago Tribune articles. I found a WBEZ radio interview that I have added that converses this focus as well in detail. Although the article was deleted several years ago, the article was later recreated, an Administrator was its second contributor in 2016, and with the participation of several editors the article was developing, so like Mpen320 I wonder how the article could have that development, and now be undergoing a new deletion discussion? -- DavidRaichel (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the nominator has not made a case for deletion based solely on "The awards are not notable and being nominated doesn't equate to notability." I think User:DavidRaichel has made a case that he has received a level coverage and the first Hispanic studio in the Midwest is not nothing.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — A Google search proves that the subject has received enough media attention to be considered notable. Mpen320 and especially DavidRaichel have made good points. Also, the presence of Template:COI leads me to believe that the article's neutrality may play a role in the nomination. On that note, I'll see if I can improve the wording and add the sources I found in my Google search.--Bleff (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can go in circles screaming "keep" but unless you can provide actual sources which establish coverage, it means nothing. Praxidicae (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like ABC, WGN, WBEZ and the Chicago Tribune establish coverage. I suspect there may be a general interest in deleting articles related to this actor, perhaps an edit war between editors with COI? --Bleff (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WGN source is a locally owned affiliate and doesn't have the necessary coverage to establish notability, the chicago tribune is a contributor op ed and WBEZ is an interview, so not independent (and a local affiliate at that), ABC7 is also a local piece and an interview. I would also encourage Bleff and DavidRaichel to take their concerns about me as an editor to the appropriate venue rather than casting baseless aspersions in an AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not baseless aspersions, you’re the author of all the deletion nominations revealed. As you wish I’ll defer to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Advocating WGN, Chicago Tribune, ABC not having the needed coverage to establish notability is faint. Even if you wanted to ignore the substantiation of the actor creating the first Hispanic film studio in Chicago, Huff Post and Film Threat devote news to the actor creating the first iphone 7 film and reinforce his original assertion.-- DavidRaichel (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DavidRaichel yes, your underhanded assertions that I have an ulterior motive along with other editors in this discussion is a baseless aspersion. If you feel the need to comment on me as an editor, do it at the appropriate venue and keep this to discussing the actual article, you know as they say, wikt:put up or shut up. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Raza filmmaking and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ave Fenix Pictures; also Mónica Esmeralda León (who also supposedly created the "la raza" filmmaking concept), and probably Arise from Darkness (see log) and its related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arise from Darkness, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arise from Darkness (2nd nomination). --Closeapple (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Bleff, "I suspect there may be general interest in deleting articles related to this actor " it is evident there is concentration by one or two editors nominating deletions in synch, as can be seen in some of the nominations that Closeapple mentioned. Putting aside the peculiar focus and the reveal that one editor is author of almost all the nominations mentioned, the original premise that merits the deletion is simply not based on what brings this actor or some of the previous article’s notability. "The awards are not remarkable and being nominated doesn't equate to notability" - If you start from that premise it is misrepresentative. Beyond being the founder of the first Hispanic film studio in Chicago and the Midwest, he created and starred in films that used innovative techniques, which are the supplementary details that make up the article.--DavidRaichel (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Weak Keep. I agree with Praxidicae in that many sources seem to be puff pieces, but it also seems like there are significant changes since the first deletion. Black Ruby seems to have gotten a fair amount of coverage, and on IMDB it states the film won multiple awards, but I can't find any direct independent media coverage of it. Also, it seems like there are at least a few non-English articles about him. It just feels like there may be a bit more time needed, or at most making it a draft page, as there seem to be at least a couple draft pages for related topics, and sequester it until notability is met. KB11001 (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete. Spam from Upe shills and socks refbombed with local puff and dud sources. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. Run of the mill awards do not make notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 13:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:ENT in that has significant coverage and has been in at least one well known series (Prison Break). I also we could say "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" because of being the first Latino film studio in Chicago. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reading thoroughly the criterions, I reiterate the fact that the actor’s notability does not rest with his subsidiary nominations or awards. That is an inaccuracy for its omission. The actor creating the first Hispanic film studio in Chicago is his dignitary. If you one maybe looking for reference’s freestanding of Chicago (Tribune, ABC, WGN, WBEZ), Film Threat Magazine and the Huff Post collaborate his notability together with the innovative fact having shot the first cinema-quality movie with the iPhone. Two are movie reviews and the rest discuss the actor’s youth outreach transitioning into film. None being spam or puff.--DavidRaichel (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG and is definitely a notable filmmaker, director, and actor. Multiple awards such as Best Actor and Best Screenplay writer at the Bel Air Film Festival and a pretty good-sized filmography. Well sourced with ABC News references and more. This really looks like a keep to me. Ambrosiawater (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnio, California[edit]

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

Another rail location, this time on an abandoned SP line. and that is exactly all that I can find out about this place beyond the usual GNIS data. Pretty clear this was never a town. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there no list article for abandoned railway stations in California that this can be redirected too? Govvy (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, we cannot even be sure there were station buildings at each of these places. Possibly if there were articles on each rail line, those articles could be targets, but for whatever reason, most such potential articles don't get written. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 'Federal Information Processing Standards Publication, Volume 55, Issue 3, Part 1' published by the Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1994, lists Pinnio, Lassen with a class-code of U6, which corresponds to 'a populated place with an authoritative common name recognized by the U.S Geological Survey' (paraphrased by me) per page 20. This publication could easily be relying on GNIS data to define whether a place is populated or not, furthering the known systematic error. The 'Tule Mountain' section (the 30th-ish page of the document) of the California Statewide Wilderness Study Report 1990 Volume 2 BLM has a map of the area. While a key isn't provided, an interpretation of the map would be that Pinnio and Madeline are settlements, and Sage Hen Stat [sic] is not. Zindor (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible evidence that a settlement named Pinnio ever existed. Glendoremus (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 17:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see any good evidence it exists or used to, and without that we shouldn't have an article on it. There's clearly nobody living there now and it's only just outside the actual settlement of Madeline, California. Hut 8.5 18:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't have access to the Durham source, so can't comment on that, but the other sources that could have shed light on the existence of Pinnio as a settlement are either not reliable or can't be interpreted without original research. One can see on satellite imagery that at least one house is in the area concerned, and the map i referenced above suggests that Pinnio had status as a minor settlement (smaller than Madeline) but alas that isn't a high enough standard of proof. Zindor (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sab Ke Anokhe Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and appears to exist only to promote SAB TV shows ,to which the award belongs also Draft:Golden Petal Awards was rejected for same reason. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of independent notability Spiderone 08:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't think even the viewers of this tv channel know about this annual award show. Couldn't find even trivial coverage. - Harsh (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polynove Pole[edit]

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

Another non-notable band! GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian metal band. The article has a no sources tag on it since 2014, and a notability tag since 2017. The article does not cite any sources indeed, just external links. They are not good on their own because they are not independent from the band nor are they reliable. I did a Google search (with their English name) and I did not found anything besides the standard databases, streaming service links, social media pages, retail sites and blog sites. While I did found some album reviews/announcements/interviews, they all appear on blog-like sites. So I did not found any reliable source whatsoever. Maybe there are some reliable sources with their Ukrainian name. But since I don't speak Ukrainian I can't determine whether they are reliable or not. Update: I did a search with their Ukrainian name as well and the results were basically the same: databases, blogs and retail sites. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure case of WP:NOTPROMO. No indication that there is any hope of passing WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Lynn[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amended added more book reviews and use of his opinions in research and books. As a regular writer for several news outlets, and his finance writing he is notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lynn evidently writes for prominent publications, but I can't find any evidence that his works have won significant critical attention, or that a work of his writing has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, and I don't see how any of the other WP:NAUTHOR criteria apply. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Mobile & Embedded Initiative[edit]

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

It exists, but how is it WP:NOTABLE? Is there an WP:ATD here that I'm missing? Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources are from the 2007 announcement. Nothing actually covering this topic in significant detail. I'm not sure that this initiative even exists anymore, as GNOME 3 is supposed to be a desktop environment that works on both desktop and mobile. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This topic does not deserve to be its own article. If it must exist merge with a similar article. Kringga (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Media Nusantara Citra. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MNC News[edit]

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

It exists but I couldn't find anything to show it meets WP:GNG. I'm very aware though that I may be missing sources due to language - what do other people think? Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom --FFS19 (talk | contribs) 20:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:NORG or WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article Media Nusantara Citra. No evidence of notability separate from the parent company. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing all five criteria for WP:SIRS. Sole source covers the media owner with barely a passing mention of the news group. Blue Riband► 16:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There's no separate sources for this station. I recall we've merged when a station is part of a larger network. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article Media Nusantara Citra Devokewater @ 20:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Baloch tribes. Sandstein 10:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darzada[edit]

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

Zero sources, a Google search yields nothing but wikipedia mirrors. Is probably invented by the creator. Although there may be easier ways to solve this, I'm calling for an AfD.--FFS19 (talk | contribs) 15:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --FFS19 (talk | contribs) 15:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator (a blocked sock) misses that the tribe does exist as evidenced by mentions in several books published before the Wikipedia article, making it clear that the article isn't a hoax. However, the article is near illegible to me, so I have cut it down to one sentence. Tribes such as these generally have articles, so I assume they are generally notable, but with as little information as is left in the article, a redirect to List of Baloch tribes might also be worth considering. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Baloch tribes. This isn't a hoax but it isn't a notable tribe either. The references given by Eddie891 don't even agree that it is a tribe at all and the text is unreferenced. There has been a great deal of editing between the AfD nomination and now but the references introduced during that time failed WP:V in that they are not actually about this subject. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does something fail verifiability just because it isn't solely or directly about the subject? It's also a mischaracterization of the article to say 1) that the text is unreferenced (there are three references) and 2) that they " don't even agree that it is a tribe at all". While the OUP source calls it a "sub-group", that's not particularly different from our definition of Tribe ("a category of human social group"), and there's no source that disagrees with the characterization as a tribe. While I'm not myself qualified to determine whether it's a tribe or not, redirecting the article to List of Baloch tribes would still imply that the topic is a tribe... You'll note that I haven't voted keep, and I'd support redirecting as an outcome, but I just don't understand what Eggishorn is trying to say here. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891:, I wasn't saying the three Goggle Books links you offered failed WP:V but that some other supposed sources added and since removed from the article did. Those links were either not about Darzada or, in one case, not about tribal groups at all but just a handwave at a general reference. The three links you offered were also general but at least mentioned Darzada although two were actually the same reference, being two versions of the USGPO country guide. Those listed Darzada as one of many tribes but gave no further information. The other source called it a subgroup of Baloch but it is impossible from context to discern whether "subgroup" means a group with a distinct identity or just people who have a function within the tribe and the reference doesn't give that information. For those reasons I don't think that there is enough information available to consider it a notable distinct tribal identity. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, Thanks for responding so promptly, that makes perfect sense now-- mentally face-palming about that duplicate source! Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Daryl[edit]

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

I propose to turn this article in to a redirect to 415 (group). After BEFORE I have found no reliable sources at all to back any of the the information stated. There is one article in the magazine, however it literally copied the info from Wikipedia. The subject is mentioned solely as a producer on several pages with no significant coverage. According to BLP-rules all the unsourced information has to be removed. Also the initial article at the point of creation was a redirect to 415 (group). Later a user DanielitoSanMiguel added basically all the information with no sources as well as a picture. There were no other contributions by this user (except for 1 edit to 2Pac), so i think it might be a coi. I think the article should be changed to a redirect as it used to be as there is no evidence of notability at the moment. Less Unless (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No actual references and the proposed redirect target is sourced only to allmusic and discogs discographies. No significant coverage in any source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sonic the Hedgehog#Cultural impact. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of Sonic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable convention whose article is very weak, rife with unsourced fancruft and relying on primary/fansite sources. Pretty much the only secondary source I could find that wasn't routine content is this Vice article, which is someone's personal account of the event. Not sure if that would help; even if it did, the article still wouldn't likely stay. The best option for the article would be a merge with Sonic the Hedgehog#Cultural impact. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Did a wider source search. A BBC article with a significant coverage of the event. I found several mentions in video game articles, such as this, but I don't think they count. Found through Guinness World Records list that the convention has won two records for first and longest-running fan convention for video game character, which may not count given lack of reliable coverage. Not sure if the BBC article would save the article. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also have a mention from VG247 here, which calls Summer of Sonic "the well-established UK equivalent" to San Diego Comic-Con, which I think is a bit over the top, but VG247 is considered reliable per WP:VG/S. I wonder if any UK-based editors might have access to print sources about the topic. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also covered by Retro Gamer here. VG247 has more articles here and here. Here's another article in Polygon, and [17] one from VideoGamer. At the moment, I remain neutral on whether to keep or merge, but there's significant coverage to warrant a mention in the encyclopedia somewhere. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those look quite WP:ROUTINE, to be honest, but I do agree those make Summer of Sonic worth mentioning on Wikipedia. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 01:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly the idea. Routine coverage alone does not establish notability, but many occurrences in reliable sources and in concert with notability-conferring articles help in fleshing out a subject and making that ultimate determination. Whether or not it's article-worthy yet, I have yet to decide, but it's enough I think the subject could be covered somewhere. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if there's a possibility of a larger "Sonic fandom" article, of which this would fit in and thus make for a better article overall. --Masem (t) 21:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If such an article were to exist, that would be an acceptable merger in my eyes. @TheJoebro64: As the prime editor over the Sonic the Hedgehog article, has there been enough sources in your research, do you think, to justify an article about Sonic fandom? Red Phoenix ^talk 21:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Red Phoenix, it's not even a question. The amount of coverage the Sonic fandom has received is staggering. JOE BRO 64 22:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sonic the Hedgehog#Cultural impact — more specifically, maybe one or two sentences using the Vice and BBC articles establishing it's a popular convention in the UK, started by a fan community (I don't think we need to namecheck Sonic Stadium as that community), and supported by Sega. Leave the redirect as being valid. A Sonic fandom article would be possible, but that would be a project - maybe one Joebro or I or WP:SEGA would take on down the road, but likely not right away. So, a short merge for now, and then potential expansion if and when a Sonic fandom article arrives. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in agreement with the above source analysis (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Red Phoenix. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can still be created. Sandstein 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1964 (song)[edit]

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

No independent coverage or information beyond the composer or that it won Festival Kanzunetta Indipendenza which itself is unsourced and has not established notability or notoriety. No appearances in reliable third party sources. No obvious place to redirect to. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This song won an award at an annual festival in Malta, and the event appears to be a big deal in that country. But this song in itself was created by a non-notable singer and writer and has not received any of its own coverage outside of the festival victory. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Philip Vella: As an WP:ATD, since neither the singer nor songwriter is notable. Barely found anyhting about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems non-notable and the artist does not have a page either. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karbonn (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no evidence it was ever released, does not seem to have a notable production process, no notable release coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Agreed, non-notable film and does not meet WP:NFF Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 11:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is absolutely no mention of this movie's existence in any reliable Indian movie source. The cited links are to an archived copy of an unreliable blog and other one is a trivial mention on another unreliable website. NN. - Harsh 2580 (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulisses Soares[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. The only significant coverage about the subject is about him becoming the first South American apostle of the LDS church. Other coverage in independent, reliable sources is limited to minor pasing mentions within the context of routine event coverage and plain name checks, none of which establish notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every single member of the Quorum of the 12 apostles has an article. There is continuing and widespread coverage. I will demonstrate more when I have time. This is not in any way a one event coverage situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not even begun to dig to find all the sources on Elder Soares two temple dedications, which is higher than most current members of the Quorum of the 12. However even this article [18] is 2 and a half months after his call. It alone defeats 1 event. 1 event has to be one time, not coverage spread over months.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here [19] is another article on Soares published almost 3 months after his call as an apostle in a publication in no way tied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This level of coverage goes way beyond any understanding of one event notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being one of the top 15 leaders of the Church does indeed in and of itself make Soares notable, as does the fact that, since his ordination as such, he has fulfilled more official roles normally carried out by the Church President or his counselors in two years than some of his fellow apostles have filled in 5 years, which is what Johnpacklambert was clearly trying to convey in his last comment. Additionally, an argument can be made that targeting the article of an apostle from an ethnic minority among top leadership could, by Wikipedia's definition, be considered to be action taken on the basis of of racist motivations, which shows clear bias on the part of the nominator. I realize that last statement may be me personally failing to assume good faith, but based on past interactions with this nominator, I have precious little reason to even attempt to do so. User:Johnpacklambert is making an earnest effort on his part to address the issues. While he (and perhaps others) do so, I'd recommend pausing this discussion, but again know the nominator's history well enough to recognize that that won't be something they'd be amenable to. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Jgstokes: Wow, really, you're calling me a racist for nominating an article for deletion. This article was not "targeted" based upon anyone's ethnicity; it was nominated for deletion because source searches were only providing BLP1E sources. I have disclosed on my user page using a userbox the I reside in the United States, but you seem to assume that I am a non-minority, but you don't know me. What if I am latino, would it then be okay in your view to nominate the article for deletion? Or, if I am white, would it be off limits to nominate an article about someone who is latino? Should nominators at AfD have to state their ethnicity to get your approval about whether or not to nominate an article for deletion? I see no reason for me announce my ethnicity to obtain your approval. Your WP:ASPERSIONS are nonsensical, and incredibly inappropriate. Furthermore, your baseless assertions of racism are wrong, vulgar and constitute a personal attack, and I ask that you immediately redact your obscene comment about me above. You are not only entirely wrong, you are entirely incorrect in making such an assertion about another user in such an obtuse, flip and disturbing manner. You need to abide by WP:NPA and stop posting personal attacks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has ever before seen such in depth articles in multiple national publications of someone who is assuming a life-long leadership position as an indication of one event coverage. The articles are not the type that is so cliassified, and we can show that all apostles get this level of coverage. Temple dedications were historcally lead by the president of the Church or one of his counselors. The fact that Soares has lead 2 puts him as one of the apostles who has lead more than normal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here [20] is an article that shows international coverage of Soares. I have found another source on Soares doing a tour of Central America which is from a publication that is without question indepdent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To understand why all members of the Quorum of the Twelve of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have articles it is neccesary to understand their position in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency are all sustained twice a year in general conference of the Church as prophets, seers and revelators. They are also sustained as such annually in over 3,000 stake conference and over 30,000 ward and branch conferences. Many members of the Church seek to memorize all their names. Even I who is the person who cares the most have never tried to memorize all the names of the General Authrity Seventy. The First Presidency and the quorum of the 12 hold weekly meetings deliberating on the affairs of the Church. They also with the presiding bishopric form the council on the distribution of tithes which makes the decisions on the monetary actions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many major decisions of The Church are only made after unanimous support of the entire First Presidency and Council of the 12. Each member of the quorum of the twelve when they are physically able gives a talk a general conference. While other general authorities talk there as well, they do not talk as often. Many of the travels, especially international travels of the apostles will be written in the Church News in a way that other church leaders do not get as much coverage. The main committees and councils of the Church all have apostles as their leaders, even though many will have non-apostle members. The council on the twice monthly lessons and Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society meetings of the Church emphasizes that in general it should be the talks of members of the First Presidency and quorum of the 12 that should be studied. While the other general authorities and general officers of the Church are important to governance and administration, the apostles have a uniquely impactful role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per brilliant analysis by Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in February 2020 when Soares toured Central America one week meeting with the President of Guatemala and the next the head of the legislature in Costa Rica, two weeks in a row the Salt Lake Tribune, which is fully and totally indepdent of (and often down right hostile towards) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, two weeks in a row had articles on what Soares was doing. I have to wonder if I was doing better searches if I could find at least a Spanish-language article on Soares meeting with the president of Guatemala.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here [21] is an article six months after their call as apostles that puts Gong and Soares at the center of its broad historical analysis. This is not the type of thing that is meant to be covered by BLP1E. It is also from a publication in no way owned or controlled by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found it [22] this article from Guatemala connected with Elder Soares ministry visit there, where he met with the Preisdnet of Guatemala. My Spanish is less than adequate, so I am not sure if it mentions the meeting with the president of Guatemala. It does have a whole biographical side bar giving all the details of Elder Soares' life though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The source is considered one of the Guatemalan newspapers of record per our article on it in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the Prensa Libre article. I have also added an article from El Mundo in El Salvador. This is one of that country's substantial papers. As far as I can tell the article is entirely focused on Soares' actions. The last paragraph gives a biography of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We now have substantial articles on Soares from major publications in at least 3 countries over a period of at least 22 months.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The Deseret News is a subsidiary of the Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" so it's not independent of the subject. I cannot verify the independence of the other sources, but most that I gave a cursory glance toward, were not. I'm also not confinved by the "every Quorum of the 12 apostles" argument, and that can be reduced to WP:OSE. If the other eleven need to be added to a list that discusses who the current dozen to simplify the project, that would be fine. With that said, WP:CLERGY seems clear and this subject qualifies. The article should be trimmed to focus only on the subject, but the subject meets notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, forgive my ignorance, but can a helpful editor, hi Johnpacklambert , let us know at what equivalent "level" Soares would be in say the protestant, and/or catholic churches ie. bishop, archb, primate, patriarch, cardinal? such a clarification may assist editors in their considerations (well, it will help me anyway:)). thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnpacklamberts analysis and followups proving it meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC) As an Apostle Soares would be at about the same level as a Cardinal in the Roman Catholic church. When he was in the Seventy he would be considered to be at about the same level as an Arch-Bishop in the Catholic church. I hope that helps you. hhhobbit (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In some ways the Seventy are like the Cardinals, in other ways the Cardinal/Apostle equivalency makes sense. The key to all of this is that apostles are looked to in super normative ways that one does not find in the Catholic Church. The twice annual general conferences have a normative power and participation level for the worldwide Church membership in ways that there is no equvalent event in any other Church, let alone in Catholicism. Some Protestant bodies have worldwide conferences, but they are more policy making conventions as opposed to doctrine dispensing ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify - technical BLP1E applies to low profile individuals and is not a test of notability. My understanding of BLP1E is though frequently misapplied. The main reason for it is to protect low profile individuals rather than show someone isn't notable. Those who are not low profile are not clearly subject to the rule per the policy and supplemental explainer. BIO1E applies when there is a different event to merge to but I don't see an obvious one here. If the individual is notable in one event that is enough I would change if evidence were presented that it wasnt notable. I am unconvinced by the argument that this position alone is enough to overide GNG. Accusing anyone of being racist is completely unacceptable behaviour and I do not see it at all. The sourcing and article is weak puffery at best and independent sources need to be included. The nomination is completely reasonable a/draftify should remain a consideration even now. That statement should be withdrawn, and I would suggest the closer discounts the opinion for violating policy. The nominator would be well within their rights to ask for a ban on that IMO. PainProf (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are calling articles in The New York Times weak puffery? There are sources from papers of record in both El Salvador and Guatemala. There are many totally and completely independent sources. The position is one where the person is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator and apostle in over 35000 meetings annually. This is a position where in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints they are looked to as a key leader. This is ages better coverage than exists for the vast majority of articles we have in Wikipedia period. There are few individuls that we have articles covering their actions from at least 4 countries, and 3 of them in papers of record in that country. To even suggest draftifying the article is ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it relies too heavily on church sources. IMO church sources are not reliable for even biographical details because they frequently make outlandish biographical claims about figures both current and historical based off religious beliefs. As such articles that rely too heavily on these sources may be in whole or in part untrue. If we are neutral to religious beliefs then we should be careful. Maybe we should have an RFC on the use of church of LDS sources for biographical details. For instance Joseph Smith's claims about the book of Mormon are not necessarily accurate biographical details (I mean no disrespect and make no claims to your beliefs here). In smaller religions there is sometimes a tendency towards revisionism and grandeur as the religion grows. Similar to all young religions there are changes in narrative over time a rewriting of history to tend towards greater organisation or historical continuity. I think it isn't apt to compare to a cardinal there are 221 Cardinals but 1.2 billion Catholics. There are as many as 16 million LDS adherents. Numbers are necessary for context here. PainProf (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You come off as extremely disreespectful. Your attempt to mass exclude "Church sources" is a total act of bigortry. Both the Church News and The Ensign seek for accuracy in what they publish. Your statement reeks of bigotry and hatre, and you have zero reasons to impune the well written and research sourcing that is involved here. Your comment comes across as advocating for bigoted exclusion of people who come from religions that you dislike. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints runs a very large history department and the operations of the Church Historian Press are such that it is a top respected publisher. Your hatred of the Book of Mormon should not be used as an excuse to exclude all articles on leaders who spend their time and energy spreading its message. Currently we treat all Episcopal Bishops as default notable, there are 1.8 million Episcopalians, so this works out to one bishop per 18,000 Episcopalians. With The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is less than one apostle per 1 million members. I have seen Episcopal Bishop articles kept on the sourcing of one article on the level of the articles we have on Soares from El Salvador and Guatemala. In no other case have I ever seen persistence in arguing sourcing is inadequate when we have sourcing from at least 4 nations spread out well over 2 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comparisons of any office in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to anything in Catholicism miss the centralized nature of how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is run, as opposed to the way the Catholic Church is run. In Catholicism the only real power of the Cardinals is to appoint a new pope. The actual running of the Church is done by the Roman Curia. In many ways the way the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 operate is as if the College of Cardinals and Roman Curia were one and the same body. Thus Elder Soares serves not only on the Quorum of the 12 which with the First Presidency deliberates on most central matters of Church governannce, and in many policy changes must reach a unanimous agreement to proceed with the First Presidency, but he also serves as a member of the Missionary Executive Committee and of the Church's Human Resources Committee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Variable volume pharmacokinetic models[edit]

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

According to the author it may be elementary mathematics but doesn't meet GNG as a theory in pharmacokinetics. Appears to be citation spam for the author. The article is in contradiction of existing theories on pharmacokinetics and therefore this meets the definition of fringe science. Of the four references two do not mention this concept. The two that do are self citations. Neither has been cited in the academic literature outside of this. I think this theory may one day be notable but at the moment it is not. PainProf (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC) PainProf (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. PainProf (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PainProf (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to be clear this is an alternative theoretical formulation and not pseudoscience but it doesn't appear to have any following other than the author. I did try to engage with the author but he couldn't provide further references. I'll obviously withdraw this if someone can find substantial independent coverage. PainProf (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even without the self-references, there is a well established, and referenced thing called variable volume pharmacokinetics, i.e., ^[1] ^[2]. This is not spam. NO attempt has been made to add to or fix this article, just to destroy the content, which is a service to no one. More references can be added but not under duress. I was unaware of the rule that one cannot write about anything that one has published oneself. So what, the topic is still well documented. It could easily be changed, added to by others. PainProf engaged in a hostile fashion not following protocol. His self-proclaimed 'engagement' was answered and ignored. The information about half-life being also variable in time is what PainProf is referring to as "it" in the sentence "According to the author it may be elementary mathematics but doesn't meet GNG as a theory in pharmacokinetics." Variable half-life is an aside in this article, it can easily be removed. Its inclusion would make the article a lot stronger, and the combination of variable volume with variable half-life forms a powerful system of equations that generalizes variable volume. There are book chapters about variable volume modelling, and not mine either. It takes time to fix an article, and PainProf want instant gratification. CarlWesolowski (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Niazi, S (1976). "Volume of distribution as a function of time". Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 65: 452–454. doi:10.1002/jps.2600650339. PMID 1263103.
^ Kim, DK; Lee, JC; Lee, H; Joo, KW; Oh, KH; Kim, YS; Yoon, HJ; Kim, HC (2016). "Calculation of the clearance requirements for the development of a hemodialysis-based wearable artificial kidney". Hemodialysis International. 20: 226–234. doi:10.1111/hdi.12343. PMID 26245302.

commentSource 1: The article is currently partly about how CarlWesolowski thinks this is wrong actually that's most of the article. Source 2 is primary research, in an adjacent field and doesn't discuss in these terms. Can you please provide the chapters I will look them up but if you don't help us find the evidence and I can't find it in pubmed then there isn't any way to fix the article. Just copy some references here to the book chapters, you are clearly an expert on the topic it shouldnt take too long if there are a lot. I am offering to take the time but you need to point in the direction of the sources.

Quote 'Perhaps the first drug centered variable volume model was created by Niazi in 1976 Niazi's equations were valid only for sums of exponential terms, that is, models that can also be considered to be compartmental models, and Niazi used the terms variable volume model and mammalian (Sic compartment'. So here for instance are you claiming that Niazi really meant a variable volume model but he was mistaken in his writing? That's original research it needs a secondary source. PainProf (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference that relies on volume changing during dialysis: Sinnappah KA, Kuan IH, Thynne TR, Doogue MP, Wright DF (2020) The pharmacokinetics of metformin in patients receiving intermittent haemodialysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. Disclamer: I cannot support the recommendations in that article. Citing it is problematic.

The following review of the metformin variable volume plus variable half-life paper was done without the input of any author at the time it was written, i.e., it was totally independent https://facultyopinions.com/prime/737178685#eval793569420. Its author only became a coauthor following that independent evaluation, so this is a secondary source. Worse, Niazi wrote to me as well, and wants to coauthor things with me now, so this independence you seek is fleeting, I cannot help it if what I write attracts attention after the fact. What Niazi wrote was perfectly correct, but only pertains to sums of exponential term models, which although the predominant model type in pharmacokinetics is limited in scope. The general equations cover a much larger range of models. "So here for instance are you claiming that Niazi really meant a variable volume model but he was mistaken in his writing?" No, Niazi was the first to specify variable volume models correctly, and I can give you references with mistakes in them as well, but Niazi made no mistakes whatsoever, all he didn't do is generalize his equations to be useful for all sorts of models. Does this help? From the metformin paper (Comparison...) "Those [sic, Niazi's] models were simultaneously compartmental models and variable volume models, but the interpretations of those different models are distinct. Niazi’s work was generalised by some of us for any density function supported on the time is on the [0,∞) interval having a varying apparent volume of drug distribution in time, Vd(t), with half-life expressions that vary in time [23]." For an introduction to variable volume models and fractals the reader is urged read reference: Macheras P, Iliadis A (2016) Chapter 7: emperical models. In: Macheras P, Iliadis A (eds) Modeling in biopharmaceutics, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics‘. Springer, New York, pp 161–189 So, what do you think happened when I wrote that? Dr Panos Macheras, the author, wrote to me strongly supporting the work. Look, this is a small field, but the best and the brightest in it are trying to shed light, Tucker, Niazi, Macheras, these are heavy-lifters with who collectively have written more than a thousand articles, chapters and books. You sure you don't want them in Wikipedia? CarlWesolowski (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Change article name to Variable volume in pharmacokinetic models~~, broader concept is okay, problem is POV based establishment of a distinct model. It isn't a distinct model but an alternative formulation of other models, this isn't in of itself significant in multiple independent sources. Each source I found had some reference to it as a potential parameter of a compartmental or non-compartmental model. Dr Wesolowski is proposing a new model in his recent papers but that hasn't met notability yet as a distinct model per se. I offer to help Dr Wesolowski explain this better. If agreed I think we can close this. PainProf (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contrary to this rename suggestion, I am going to say nuke it. While the concept of pharmacokinetics under conditions of variable volume is theoretically a valid topic (though the notability is iffy - there are all kinds of special conditions that affect a core model yet don't have the notability to merit their own individual treatment), what we have here bears little resemblance to what that would be. Since it would basically have to start from scratch anyhow, the the better approach is to do exactly that, start a new article from scratch rather than trying to transition this article into something different. You can always work with CarlWesolowski on a new article draft off main-space and see whether there is sufficient reference material to write an article on the broader topic without synthesis, then bring it forward if it proves viable. Agricolae (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are additional comments by CarlWesolowski on this article's Talk page. Per the above suggestion I agree after trying to make draft, there was insufficient material to do a full article at this stage. Therefore I withdraw my previous suggestion. PainProf (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have been engaging a little with the creator on the relevant Talk page, and am starting to think this was not only intended to publicize his own research, but also as a WP:SOAPBOX to set his formulation as a superior replacement to the standard model (which everyone accepts as a mathematical construct used to simplify complex physiology). This is not fringe, just a completely obscure special application that has only been studied singly in a small number of drugs, with no references to indicate there is a broader general formulation or that anyone outside of the sub-sub-sub-specialty working on it has noticed. Agricolae (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient independant coverage, plus as Agricolae said, WP:SOAPBOX. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per input provided herein. It appears that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrit W. Gong[edit]

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

Qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. The only significant coverage about the subject is about him becoming the first Chinese-American apostle of the LDS church. Other coverage in independent, reliable sources is limited to minor pasing mentions within the context of routine event coverage and plain name checks, none of which establish notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. Also the article is heavily dependent upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every single member of the Quorum of the 12 apostles has an article. There is continuing and widespread coverage. I will demonstrate more when I have time. This is not in any way a one event coverage situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The admission above is that the coverage of Elder Gong's call as a general authority is significant. Beyond this, the claim that that is the only significant coverage is just plain false. I found 3 articles in 3 different publications in no way tied to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that provide significant coverage of his role in the "Face to Face" event that inaugurated the new Children and Youth Program. That amounts to significant coverage. I also found a review of a book he published in 1984 in a scholarly journal. There is also coverage in relation to his role in the Pacific Ministry Tour of May 2019 that is probably of the type that adds towards passing GNG. This google books reference [23] shows sustained engagement with Gong's 1984 book. I am not sure I can sustain fully the fact that Gong was a notable academic, but I can argue that every single aposlte ever has received enough coverage at their call to justify an article, and there is continued coverage of him both long before and long after the event to argue he is notable. This [24] Salt Lake Tribune article was published well over two months after Gong's call as an apostle so undermines the general argument of one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here [25] is another book that engages with Gong's 1984 work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here [26] is another work that builds significantly on Gong's Memory and History in East and Southeast Asia: Issues of Identity in International Relations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I have added a few more sources. I also found this [27] yet another place where reaction is given to his 1984 book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gong held the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This may in and of itself be enough to pass the named chair prong of academic notability. I am not sure enough about the owrkings of this institution to say for sure, but it might be enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here [28] is another article on Gong from a publication with no ties to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published almost 3 months after his call as an apostle.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gong is one of 15 top leaders of the church in question. As such, his place in the hierarchy is one that is sufficiently notable to warrant keeping the article about him. In prior discussed attempts to delete articles about apostles like Gong, the overwhelming consensus was to keep those articles. Johnpacklambert has made an earnest attempt here, I feel, to establish independent sourcing outside of sources tied to the Church. And there is no shortage of those. My recommendation would be to pause this nomination for the time being, to give Johnpacklambert and others a chance to fix the alleged problems with this article, but have little hope that the nominator will see this as a reasonable suggestion. It sounds as though Johnpacklambert has made an earnest effort to find sufficiently independent sources as he's noted above, and hopefully he will continue to look for and incorporate such sources in accordance with policy. Hopefully his continued efforts will move the consensus towards a clear "keep" result. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I can see reliable sources with in-depth significant coverage discussing subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Paper Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only source is the official website of the company. It was PRODed in 2010 but nominator self reverted for some reason. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advance is a known manufacturer of paper in the Philippines. However, there is no significant coverage on this company. A Google news search returns zero results. It fails WP:NCORP. HiwilmsTalk 19:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything the company, despite being a known manufacturer. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Gbadamosi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps at senior fully-pro level: Feirence caps are for U23 team, Famalicao team is not FC Famalicao, but AC Famalicao from regional league. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Article is fully blanked. I think the article should be deleted if it will not complete properly Onmyway22 (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Would have love to save the article because footballers tend to have potentials of meeting WP:NFOOTY but i couldn't find anything on this guy, looks like he just got transferred to this new team, aside soccerway he has not been updated on the team's squad list even goal.com has no record of him.--Brain7days (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5 Minute Dharma[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this podcast. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything on Google News or Google Scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Spasemunki (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find evidence of GNG. WP:NOTPROMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of this article fails to meet the notability requirements. All the sources cited are primary, and self published websites.Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 Socking Ged UK 10:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.[edit]

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

I found no signficant coverage for this legal case per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was created by a sockpuppet so speedy delete? SL93 (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I tagged it. SL93 (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 157[edit]

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

Non-notable, ok, airframe was written off, but it was repairable. No casualties and no significant consequences / changes in legislation, procedures or airworthiness Petebutt (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete. Low-profile accident with lack of deep coverage (only 2 sources) and lack of widespread lasting effects. Fails WP:N(E). Redirect to Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents, its mention there is good enough. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents. Fails WP:GNG. Even if sources beyond the included incident reports can be found, it would still fail WP:NOTNEWS. StonyBrook (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's not presently included in the article, but the incident prompted an investigation into a new possible point of structural failure of the aircraft model. 15 aircraft were inspected, and 5 of them were found to have cracking in the fittings that attach the aft pressure bulkhead to the fuselage stringers. The FAA issued an airworthiness directive requiring all operators of the aircraft to inspect and replace those fittings. (60 Fed. Reg. 47,465 September 13, 1995). However, I wasn't able to find any news coverage of the incident through a search on newspapers.com throughout the month of August, 1995 other than a trivial mention that Delta Air Lines's L-1011 planes are really getting old and a source told the writer that two of them were grounded due to mechanical problems. So, falls short of WP:GNG. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention it, but I agree with Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents as a target of the redirect. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While your points make sense, maybe there were more newspaper articles about this accident in September 1995 than August 1995. This accident happened in late August. Also, there is an aviation article that has only three sources and no info about the subsequent investigation and aftermath-specifically this article here: Oklahoma State Cowboys basketball team plane crash. Yet, that article is not nominated for deletion or redirects. I just think the inconsistency between the two articles is weird, especially since the former (this article being nominated for deletion) is not a stub. Why can't I edit Userpedia? (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. StonyBrook (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked September 1995 as well and I saw nothing there on newspapers.com either. While it's nowhere near a perfect search, I have usually been able to do a similar search like that to turn up news coverage on other aviation incidents to be able to determine how widespread the coverage of the incident was, in order to show that the subject matter meets the minimum notability standards. I wasn't able to find anything in this case other than the airworthiness directives that resulted from it, which means that it can at least be mentioned on the airline website, but the incident wasn't widely reported enough (as far as I can tell) for a stand-alone article. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails notability for a stand alone article. Agree with redirect per above. - Samf4u (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delta Air Lines#Accidents and incidents, as others have said. Maybe a bit more of the content can be merged if need be. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Killing Eve. Consensus is that, as noted by The Gnome, that the topic of the article is essentially the plot of the TV series Killing Eve, which makes it a content fork of our article about that series. Sandstein 10:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship of Eve Polastri and Villanelle[edit]

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

An unnecessary article, as raised on the talk page. Original research cobbled together from reviews and analysis of a television series. Adds nothing over the existing character articles, and reads like a high school essay. Step hen 05:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Step hen 05:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Step hen 05:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge. This seems like a very detailed piece of WP:OR, suffering from WP:SYNTH. The relationship is not the main topic of any source cited; it is a plot element that is not analyzed~in-depth by reliable sources. The article is actually interesting and well written (I don't think it is fair to compare it to a high school essay as the nom does), but due to the OR issues I'd suggest the author tries to publish it some academic journal (or less demanding popular media) first, Wikipedia is not the palce for original research. Some parts of this could be saved by being merged into articles about characters or the plot summary, but I don't see evidence that the relationship itself meets WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG and instead I have major concerns over it being on the wrong side of OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Since I was careful to accurately describe what reliable sources said (merely organizing the content thematically into sections), I'm interested in what you think is my "original research" or "synthesis"; be specific. Related: surely you don't think notability requires a topic to be "the main topic" of sources; here, the relationship ("buddy comedy", "Killer Chemistry", etc. in references' titles) of the two same-importance main characters, virtually permeates sources' discussion even if discussed in a larger context of the show. —16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC) WP:GNG specifically states that "Significant coverage...does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". —RCraig09 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Per my extended comments on the Talk page; please read them if there's any doubt. As I emphasized there and as shown in various edits (example), the relationship per se (attraction betweeen pursuer and pursued, same-sex relationship interaction, cat-and-mouse details, personalities becoming more alike over time, etc. etc.) is critical content in the series, above and beyond the characters separately. See especially the sourced content in the "Context of the relationship..." section (relationship is the "core of the show"; "the "series' true allure is the deeply complicated love-hate dynamic"; "TV's most mesmerizing, twisted relationship"). Incidentally, this diff shows dozens of other standalone relationship articles on WP. Nominator's reasons are not policy based ("unnecessary" article?), factual (there's no "original research"), or substantive ("cobbled together"; "high school essay"). Disclosure: I've been the article's main editor. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple fact that as I wrote the separate Eve Polastri and Villanelle (character) articles, I encountered a lot of sourced "relationship" content that would have required duplication in the two character articles, and possibly also in the main Killing Eve article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What you need to justify this type of article is something like Superman and Lois Lane. In that case you have 82 years of ongoing comics, something like 8 live actions films, at least 4 live action TV shows (the Arrowverse makes this hard to count), multiple animated TV shows and animated films, a young adult novel trilogy, at least one other published novel that is not a novelisation of any existing work at all, and even songs that come into considering the implications of the relationship. OK that is probalby more than you need to establish why you would have an article on it, but it takes lots and lots of material to justify having a freestanding article of this type. Robinhood and Maid Marian is only a redirect, and the few other love pairings I could think of off the top of my head in comics returned no hits. Oh, and I forgot to mention with Superman and Lois Lane there was an 11 year radio serial as well. It is not just 82 years of them being put together in comics, starting with the first issue of Superman in 1938. The next Superman TV show will be Superman and Lois (set in the same universe as Supergirl, and now also The Flash). The 1990s TV show Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman was a situational romantic comedy that put the connections of Lois and Clark front and center. You need a subject to have this level of background material to create a cultural impact to justify having articles on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any concrete basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines for your new, higher-threshold-of-notability requirement? Here is my partial list of other "relationship" articles covering subjects with less notability than your new Superman/LoisLane standard. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Organize / Merge as a redundant content fork to the main character articles, but still something of verifiable value here. Agree with Piotrus that this is near WP:SYNTH and tries to build an odd article scope that isn't really consistent with our best practices. But a lot of this stuff is verifiable, if verging on an original essay from the author. Some of this could help flesh out the character articles, or a character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I come to this with an admitedly suspicious mind since this type of article, just like the plot sections in articles about films, is usually loaded with original work, and often guilty of some intense forking. The contested article, though, is not guilty of either infraction. The necessary references are there and, not surprisingly for anyone watching television, verify that the subject is highly notable, without a whiff of the WP:OR aroma. The article is about a relationship that has, per sources, engaged at length, to the point of fascination, critics and the audience alike. However, here's where we stumble towards having a stand-alone, independent article: The relationship is the series! The series is about that relationship and without the relationship there is no series. It's what all the references are actually, essentially saying. This is not the same at all with the other pairings cited above by RCraig09, with articles of their own, since these pairings are not the central subject of the underlying story. This is a well researched text that's undoubtedly worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and we should dedicate a section in Killing Eve to it, sources and all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone has actually checked the references' content! (Thank you.) Every sentence in the main body is specifically and reliably sourced, without the WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS that is accused but not substantiated by others above. Again: I created this article after finding abundant content that should not be needlessly duplicated in the two separate characters' articles previously created. Though I would not go so far as to agree with The Gnome that "the relationship is the series",^{(see perceptive analyses in "Critical Response, Series 1" in the main KE article)} I could live with a clean, one-piece merge to the main article (though it's at 90 KBytes now). In any event, the notability of the relationship per se demands this material stay together. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Step hen 01:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Stephen. By nominating this article for deletion you already submitted your !vote to delete. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion and nominators should refrain from repeating this. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, struck my vote. Step hen 06:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the place for this is in the main article on the series. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you then be opposed to a Merge? -The Gnome (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TransferGo[edit]

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

Not notable start-up, no in-depth coverage to pass WP:NCORP. Proded twice, tagged for notability since 2014 Renata (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject of the article is notable with significant mentions in secondary sources. For instance, this [[29]] is an award won by the subject with significant mention in this very article. These [[30]][31]] are some other sources cited in the article with significant mentions of the subject. The language or the tone of the articles appear neutral with no noticeable slant to show that they are press releases. Jokolis (talk) 7:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- The award is not notable, and the article about it does not cover TransferGo in depth. Startups.co.uk is essentially a press release. Techcrunch is so far the only quality source for WP:NCORP, but multiple such sources are needed. Renata (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sock. MER-C 08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:ORG as no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be observed. @Renata3, I wouldn’t worry too much about arguing policy with the Nigerian editor above as edit history & pattern show they are a sock/returning blocked editor. Celestina007 (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One actual independent, RS amongst all the Refbombing doth not notability make. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. Regarding renaming the article via a page move, this can be further discussed on the article's talk page, or perhaps simply boldly performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Kassumba[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to correctly spelled title:Kasumba, one "s". Plenty of coverage to establish notability. Was nominated 7 mins after completion:try tagging for improvement first? PamD 06:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Empowerment Alliance[edit]

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

Deletion was proposed by an IP editor who is unable to start this AfD process. For the record, I fully support deletion; coverage here is extraordinarily thin. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need to belabor the rationale I offered while editing the article and at the talk page. Suffice to say this is, at best, WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources in article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Stigmonus[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An extremely minor character that only appeared in a small handful of issues. There is absolutely no coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Even fansites and the DC Wiki have virtually no information on the character, he is so non-notable. Rorshacma (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rational given by Rorshacma. Mostly lack of any coverage on the character. Including in places where there normally would be if the person was notable, like fansites and DC Wiki. Plus, even if there was sources the article is massively over narrative or whatever and would take a fundamental re-rewrite to fit Wikipedia guidelines. So, I think WP:TNT would apply here as much as a lack of notability does. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Best source I can find describes itself as Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Appears to have appeared in exactly six comic book issues, and has gained no reliable coverage. This is up there with Gonzo the Mechanical Bastard and Ohtar plumbed the depths of obscurity, but this is giving them a run for their money. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Krämer[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion by User:Cardiffbear88 due to failing WP:NPROF, deprodded with no rationale/argument. I concur that the subject is likely not notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Marginal case. I might be more favorable if there were a GS profile. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as the original nom for PROD. Unsourced article with no claim to notability, and no evidence of reliable sources that could be added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's got two books with reasonable WorldCat holdings. But I was only able to find one review for a possible WP:NAUTHOR case [32]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable academic. --Lockley (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, he published at least one book and a lot more. However, there are no good reviews about his work and very little information about him personally based on 3rd party RS. It is even hard to say what he is notable for. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Master list of Nixon's political opponents. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George H. Talbot[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. And yes, I looked for sources that would describe him in relation to the Nixon issue, and I couldn't find much beyond a few passing mentions here and there, mostly in transcripts (so, WP:PRIMARY). The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Master_list_of_Nixon's_political_opponents since it seems his major claim to significance derives from that shitlist. If you see articles like this in future (badly sourced microstubs on topics completely dependent on some other list) just redirect them right away rather than going the PROD route. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Master list of Nixon's political opponents per above. No independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Master list of Nixon's political opponents. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bertram Lichtenstein[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. And yes, I looked for sources that would describe him in relation to the Nixon issue, and I couldn't find much beyond a few passing mentions here and there, mostly in transcripts (so, WP:PRIMARY). The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Master_list_of_Nixon's_political_opponents since it seems his major claim to significance derives from that shitlist. If you see articles like this in future (badly sourced microstubs on topics completely dependent on some other list) just redirect them right away rather than going the PROD route. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Master list of Nixon's political opponents per above. No independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos#A–F. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flying polyp[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos § A–F The Flying Polyps have not been seriously analysed. Furthermore, Great Race of Yith is now a redirect page. The Yithians are more notable than the Flying Polyps are. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Susmuffin's suggestion of Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos#A–F is one possibility, as is The Shadow Out of Time, the short story where they were introduced and where most of the information on their fictional history came from. The polyps are not a major race of the Mythos - they were not even the focus of the story they debuted in, and were never given an actual name. The sources currently being used as citations are unusable as Reliable Sources - there is an RPG gamebook, a deviantart page, and a toy listing that doesn't even mention the polyps. There is also a listing for The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana, but upon looking at it, the entry on the polyps is just a summary of The Shadow Out of Time. Rorshacma (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tsathoggua#Voormis. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voormis[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor fictional race of the Mythos, that do not seem to have any reliable sources discussing them in any kind of manner. Searching for sources just turns up the actual texts from the stories they were mentioned in, and that is pretty much it. I'd suggest a Redirect to the story that they debuted in, but it does not appear that an article exists for that story. Rorshacma (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that the entirety of the article is copied verbatim over at Tsathoggua#Voormis, which makes this a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as well. I suppose I would be fine if this article became a Redirect there, but as the information still has the exact same issues of being non-notable, non-reliably sourced plot information no matter where its placed, I'd prefer if it was just removed from there, instead. Rorshacma (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree but I guess this is something to revisit in a year or two given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsathoggua. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and an exact copy of already existing information in another article anyway. Which IMO should also be deleted (the non-notable information that was copied, not the article it came from). --Adamant1 (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tsathoggua § Voormis This article is a redundant content fork. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tsathoggua#Voormis. This is a Content Fork described from an entirely in-universe perspective, sourced only to primary sources and no better sources can be found. Clearly fails GNG and WP:PLOT, but the section in Tsathoggua is a reasonably redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlackWeald[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC // Timothy :: talk 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject clearly non-notable. Domeditrix (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure how to do it, but I've added a link to a full review of a notable dark ambient site (not just a mention) ( The Dungeon In Deep Space Review ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.140.89 (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymously written blog is not considered a reliable source, and thus cannot be used to establish notability. Domeditrix (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'm on mobile so it's pretty hard to edit this page :) Can you help me understand what counts as notable source for these kinds of niche projects? Eg. in comparison the page of the genre's most well known artist ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrium_Carceri ) hardly has more sources than it's own web page and similar kind of blog posts. Again, thank you for taking time in helping me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.140.89 (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, that article too is lacking in good citations. The guidelines for notability for bands can be found at WP:BAND. I suppose Atrium Carceri may meet point 4 of that list, but that's doubtful given most of the bands listed as being in the label's roster (Cold Meat Industry) also appear non-notable. Domeditrix (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 176.63.140.89, I'd start by reading WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:BAND. New groups, especially those in niche markets, have a tougher time getting the sources that meet the Wikipedia criteria. Sources need to have "Significant coverage - addresses the topic directly and in detail" (database type sites simply announcing/documenting a release wouldn't count, unless they contain an independent review by an editor). They also generally need to have some kind of editorial policy/board to demonstrate reliability(objectivity) and independence (which means blogs are usually not used to establish notability).

I think the source that comes closest, if not meets this, is Brutal Resonance. I've been looking for more WP:RS and found one more on this site and added it to be article. If I have time, I will continue to look for sources. I noticed your IP is from Hungary, so if you find Hungarian language WP:RS, please add them. I personally hope this article passes as a Keep (I enjoyed listening to them last night). If it doesn't, it may garner additional reviews over time and it may be able to be recreated later with those new sources. It might just be WP:TOOSOON.

I hope this has been helpful and wish you success in finding sources. Please let me know if I can help you. I hope you create an account and continue to edit. // Timothy :: talk 14:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charitably it is too soon for an article on this group. So far they have received a review in a specialty publication (the one being debated above) but otherwise all they have are short reprinted press releases and self-created social media promotions. They do not have the significant and reliable media coverage to meet the requirements for band notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am Hungarian and I have never heard about this band (okay, they formed this year but still... Anyway that's not the point here. Sorry.) I looked them up and could not find anything besides the standard unreliable sites like databases, social media sites, sites where the word "BlackWeald" does not appear in the band's context (apparently it is also the name of some character in some video game), and reprinted press releases. This article is obviously the case of WP:TOOSOON. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, BlackWeald here! I've created this page of my project with only good intentions (after getting positive feedback and a few hundred listeners on streaming services), but I understand that it breaks these guidelines and therefor, marked for being deleted. My goal was to help people finding my project easier, and having a structured discography in written form. Sorry again if it's "too soon". Dark ambient is really an underground genre, so achieving these notability requirements is gonna be hard (eg. blog articles don't count as notable), but I'll try to make sure to only re-create the page when the requirements are met. Thanks for your help and kind words, Timothy ! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.62.5 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bêlit[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think Wiktionary includes Akkadian, but I fail to see how a word translated is a notable encyclopedic topic. Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Master list of Nixon's political opponents#Business people. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Heineman[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. And yes, I looked for sources that would describe him in relation to the Nixon issue, and I couldn't find anything. It seems that a brief mention in a newspaper or such (maybe WP:PRIMARY transcript?), yeear ago, that he made such a list is his sole claim to fame. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Master_list_of_Nixon's_political_opponents since it seems his major claim to significance derives from that shitlist. If you see articles like this in future (badly sourced microstubs on topics completely dependent on some other list) just redirect them right away rather than going the PROD route. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Master_list_of_Nixon's_political_opponents. Nika2020 (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Master list of Nixon's political opponents#Business people. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Manealoff[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. And yes, I looked for sources that would describe him in relation to the Nixon issue, and I couldn't find much beyond a few passing mentions here and there, mostly in transcripts (so, WP:PRIMARY). The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Master_list_of_Nixon's_political_opponents since it seems his major claim to significance derives from that shitlist. If you see articles like this in future (badly sourced microstubs on topics completely dependent on some other list) just redirect them right away rather than going the PROD route. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Master_list_of_Nixon's_political_opponents. Nika2020 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. We have generally held that for a populated place to meet GEOLAND, reliable sources just need to verify its existence. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karangsari, Central Java[edit]

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

Notability not established JarrahTree 00:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 00:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty much any populated place (such as a village, which this is) is considered notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of how many totally non notable villages there are in Indonesia ? JarrahTree 01:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of how many villages overall there were, until you posted on my user talk page that "According to the 2019 report by the Ministry of Home Affairs, there are 8,488 urban villages and 74,953 rural villages in Indonesia." I don't know to be certain as to whether they are notable or not. However, for comparison, do we consider the Communes of France, of which there are over 36,000, to be inherently notable as populated places? Indonesia has more than twice as many villages as France has communes -- but Indonesia has four times the population of France, so the average Indonesian village is more populous than the average French commune. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the guidelines by which the whole project works - WP:NOT and quite a few others - population is nothing if there is not adequate WP:N, and WP:RS for WP:V - most villages can be and shuold be incorporated by name into the next level of government above - where they can safely sit without inhabiting stub space where they can never be expanded - as there are no WP:RS for non notable locations - as that would failWP:V... But hey most non indonesians have no idea of the sheer volume of populated places - or the totally non notable aspects... If every commune of france has a unique item for V - reliable sources about history and context, I would have not a problem with that - the tens of thousands of Indonesian villages have no separate history or context or anything for V. if anything they are listed in items for regencies and higher levels of government - apart from that there is no distinguishing feature apart from the name - believe me I have walked through a few hundred in Bantul regency some time back... JarrahTree 02:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not remotely notable, and I cannot see this article ever being expanded. Davidelit (Talk) 10:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not very notable but still it doesn't fulfill criteria for deletion.

2. It fulfills verfiability and reliability and a large part of notability criteria. 3. Tens of thousands of articles exist about little to unknown places or ghost towns. A village with over 5000 inhabitants is more important than a ghost town. Shaheen Hassan (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing to establish further that it simply exists - the inherent aspect of WP:N in most projects is there is something more than simply existing - that it has something historical or that extends notability beyond existing that there are items that substantiate some presence in WP:RS other than lists or regency lists. whether articles exist for unknown places or ghost towns is irrelevent - importance is not specifically designated in the criterion of notability.

The point by other editors who might query as to whether the stub can be extended further than the initialedit - the potential for expansion is an often discussed topics on afds - there are no signs of further material to expand the article. In some projects that is an automatic reason for deletion.

The need for an Afd such as this one is that there have not been any recent discussions over the issue in the Indonesian project as to whether all 80,000 villages continue to have random additions to the project where there are not WP:RS even from indonesian sources - let alone english sources. JarrahTree 13:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC) A government source is considered a reliable source.Shaheen Hassan (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly exists and is a recognised village. We keep all officially recognised settlements per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a second choice to keeping, the page could be redirected to the next larger geographic unit that has an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next larger geographic unit that has an article, Pemalang Regency is too large in both size and population for Karangsari to be redirected to it. As Necrothesp pointed out, Wikipedia considers all legally recognised populated places as notable even if they have very low population or abandoned. This village is has 5015 inhabitants according to 2010 government census which is larger than many towns. Shaheen Hassan (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia generally considers legally recognized places notable and this is no different. There are little to no reliable sources in English, but this news organization mentions it and so does this one. There could be more sources, but these are the first two news sites (as opposed to blog sites) I came across in a quick google search in Indonesian. Article is notable, but requires an editor that can translate Indonesian for the rest of us. (Google translate was used to make this.) Danre98^{(talk|contribs)} 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets criteria of WP:GEOLAND. I am not impressed by the article quality but deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QloApps[edit]

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

I don't see how this meets WP:NCORP or even WP:GNG. Opensource.com reads like an ad, Capterra is the blog of an online marketplace, financesonline doesn't strike me as establishing notability, and neither does any of the other sourcing in the article. A WP:BEFORE before search reveals no other coverage that would be sufficient for notability. While it may be "the only truly free and open-source software that is trying to serve the hotel industry", I don't see the coverage to make it notable. A previous prod was removed, so taking to AFD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Opensoure.com is one of the most trusted platform in the open source industry. It is covering the open source software industry from past 10 year around the globe. Opensource.com is backed by Red Hat and independently cover the open source industry. So it is the most trusted source for any open source software. And many famous systems are using this as a source.

Capterra is also an independent reviewing platform. It lists, compares, and review Softwares independently and write industry-wise blogs on them. Again, Capterra is also used on Wikipedia as a source for many popular Softwares.

As an open-source enthusiast, I have read many articles on Wikipedia on open source software before writing one myself. And I have tried to follow all the guidelines in my articles in a similar manner other pages are doing.

Opensource.com and Capterra both are used by the software are notable sources. Here is one example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERPNext

Please let me know how my use of these sources is not fair.

Now coming to coverage. I found a lot more articles and listing on the internet to prove that the software has optimum coverage on the internet. Although I have added more references in my article and have improved the article, I am figuring out how can I use the other references. Here are some links that I found. https://crozdesk.com/industry-specific/hotel-management-software/qloapps https://www.g2.com/products/qloapps/competitors/alternatives https://sourceforge.net/software/product/QloApps/alternatives https://dribbble.com/tags/qloapps https://alternativeto.net/software/qloapps/ https://www.behance.net/gallery/50349589/Qloapps-an-Opensource-Booking-reservation-System-UI?tracking_source=search_projects_recommended%7Cqloapps https://www.techimply.com/profile/qloapps https://www.business-software.com/product/webkul-software-qloapps/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tomislav_Car/publication/335803521_INTERNET_OF_THINGS_IOT_IN_TOURISM_AND_HOSPITALITY_OPPORTUNITIES_AND_CHALLENGES/links/5d887f6d92851ceb792fae0e/INTERNET-OF-THINGS-IOT-IN-TOURISM-AND-HOSPITALITY-OPPORTUNITIES-AND-CHALLENGES.pdf

According to what I saw on the internet QloApps community is growing fast worldwide. Even some companies have started working on this platform. Here is what I found, http://support.miritech.com/blog/qloapps-a-hotel-booking-and-reservation-system-miri-infotech/ https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/Miri-Infotech-Qloapps-A-customizable-online-reserv/B07D7VH19M

They have more than 300 stars and 250+ forks on Github. So it is visible that software is getting popular. And even freelance developers are also working on this platform. https://www.freelancer.com/projects/php/qloapps-payment-gateway-18825856/

So like any other open-source software QloApps seems to be on the right path. And it is the only software of this nature which is working in the hotel industry. So I deeply believe that QloApps deserves a Wikipedia page.

I will be researching more and more on this topic to improve the article. But still, I have made changes. I will expect your help in improving and retaining the article.

--Fizziwritter (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Prestashop and Magento are the two similar open-source platforms that are working in the e-commerce domain. I think that QloApps will have the same impact in the hotel industry as an open-source platform. And it will grow in a similar fashion.

Opensource systems are preferred these days to launch a website and most of the websites are based on such systems so because QloApps is one of the few open-source platforms for the hotel industry, I think it is destined to grow.

And that is why in my opinion QloApps deserves to be on Wikipedia. Apart from that, it has the required coverage and the impact that is needed to be on Wikipedia.

But still, if I have got any part wrong then I will be more than happy to change it or remove it. I am new to Wikipedia and I need the community to help me in improving the article. I need the community to guide me to improve the article as the topic is deserving to have a wiki article. --Fizziwritter (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Struck duplicate !vote. Renata (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no opensource.com is not one of the most trusted media. Good sources would be media with a long tradition of independent journalism like Foreign Affairs magazine or the like. Also, you argue that you think it will be important in the future. That is not a valid reason for inclusion. Yes, there is WP:TOOSOON, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect that this thing will suddenly blow up, and there is no evidence to support that. We can't just keep everything that somebody is affiliated with and think will become popular soon. There must be reliable sources now. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are very poor and do not demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP or WP:NSOFT. Steemit is a Reddit clone (WP:UGC), this is just a directory listing, FinancesOnline seems to be a pay-for-reviews outlet, this is a blog, this is just a keyword stuffing SEO spam site, etc. Fizziwriter, please strike your second vote - you only get to vote once. Spicy (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and source analysis of Spicy. Renata (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there were 20 independent business-y sources (and there's not) the problem with the language of corporate coverage is, it's almost always positive. The prose has a different set of norms and standards. It doesn't translate well back into an atmosphere where we're supposed to present balanced views. Corporate prose is also vague around the edges, sometimes with only fog at its heart, so without an up-to-date factual analysis of its sector and market it would be a day's work to understand the true notability of QloApps -- how it ranks with its competitors and that sort of thing. Do I see anything that belongs in an encyclopedia? Definitely not. --Lockley (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the app. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of bitcoin forks. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin XT[edit]

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

Gmaxwell sums it up at Talk:Bitcoin XT. "Bitcoin XT stopped being Bitcoin software over two years ago and it was abandoned over a year ago. It hasn't seen a single update in a few days shy of a year now. The article contains many outdated and simply incorrect claims and it isn't likely to be corrected or maintained because the article is about a long defunct obscure piece of software. Is there any good reason to not delete the article?" So this is merely a historical relic, it could be a footnote in Bitcoin. Ysangkok (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Additional time has only further supported the view I gave on the talk page. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a long defunct obscure piece of software is not a valid reason for deletion (per WP:DEL-REASON). However, merging or redirecting to another article may be a viable fate for such kind of articles about subjects of limited notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor:, the subject was never really covered in mainstream media. The Wired article mentions it as an example of open-source, but the article is not really about XT, it is about the social dynamics. So it fails Wikipedia:GNG, being only covered in isolated cases. It should be covered in Bitcoin, it is a historical side note, and only notable in the larger context of scaling debates. It fails "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable general interest, independent secondary sources;", since there are only articles in niche media like Wired. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoinj, a similar article. Its result was merge. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a also a similar discussion to delete Bitcoin Core and merge it into Bitcoin. Is this to delete all evidence of a non-core history? At wikipedia we keep based upon WP:GNG, not if the software is actually used anymore or not. This article like Bitcoin Core, both meet GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked to comment on this AfD.[33] I do not believe that this was canvassing, because I am known to be neutral on those aspects of bitcoin that generate so much heat; my interest is in the mathematical details of the cryptography and the engineering details of the mining hardware. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The reasons given for deletion reasons to improve the article, are valid reasons to delete a Wikipedia article. The article is clearly notable (covered in depth by The Guardian, The New Yorker, Extreme Tech, PC World, WIRED, and CNBC). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral based on comment by Gmaxwell below. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you're correct. Take a step through those sources. E.g. The Guardian, literally all it says about XT is that in override's Bitcoin's blocksize rule: the article isn't about Bitcoin XT, it's about the bitcoin blocksize drama. Same for Extreme Tech and others-- go look at the titles, every one is about that. By the time XT was abandoned it wasn't even software for Bitcoin but for another cryptocurrency. None of these articles actually talk about XT itself, e.g. they don't cover the severe vulnerabilities it had at various points, the fake nodes used to promote it, or the anti-privacy "features" like the TOR blacklisting and centralized phone home. Nor do they cover its positive features either such as acting as a server for Hearn's "kickstarter" service. They don't cover that it later came out its author was employed by a Bitcoin competitor (R3) during the time he was running XT without disclosing the conflict of interests, or any of the other reasons it failed. They don't cover its disagreements with the cryptocurrency it switched to after it failed on bitcoin nor its failures there. E.g. They don't cover much that wasn't in the paid wire service announcement of it in the first place. They're not actually about XT, they're thin articles about a specific controversy which just mention XT as a participant in that controversy. And as a result the article pretty much doesn't either. There isn't a lot of avenue to improve the article because there are few/no non-primary sources for anything about the subject itself which aren't actually articles about a specific controversy that just happen to mention it and because it was a failed attempt has since been abandoned. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'm puzzled by the inconsistency with your comments on the Bitcoin Core AFD. Here you report Strong Keep, but there you are Merge or Delete. I agree that article should be deleted too, yet it has *significantly* more coverage which is unrelated to a single event (including academic work as well as popular press), plus orders of magnitude more use now and in the past. That seems really inconsistent to me. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote to neutral, based upon your comments. Bitcoin XT is mentioned in those sources, but I need to evaluate your claim that Bitcoin XT is only mentioned in passing. Regarding Bitcoin Core I still don't see any evidence that it should be treated as anything other than a version of Bitcoin. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think the viewpoints of everyone are valid. Although this may be encyclopedic, it doesn't really deserve an article b/c of it being defunct and being around for only small period time. This is a piece of history, so I think we should merge this into Bitcoin as it is apart of its history. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge @Pavlor: said what I wanted to said, norm is not a good reason, but I think the subject itself fails GNG. Consider merging with Bitcoin rather than keeping a separate article. I like to say the current content Bitcoin XT is helpful. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge with Bitcoin. The Bitcoin article was marked as too long and split to subpages such as History of bitcoin, Economics of bitcoin, etc. After those splits, the prose size of the Bitcoin article is 48,273 characters at present. Seeing proposals to merge several articles into it including this one, I am afraid that the prose would become unreadable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idea -- We could merge this with List of bitcoin forks OR put an summary of this product on that page. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 10:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of bitcoin forks. I think that's a reasonable compromise. I think it warrants mention somewhere, but the sourcing isn't up to par enough to warrant an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of bitcoin forks. While it does not seem to deserve an article of its own, it should have coverage somewhere. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of bitcoin forks. reading through the arguments listed above I think this is a workable solution. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Wings Without Scars[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this album meets wp:nalbum. It hasn't been discussed by independent sources (ie, no reviews), hasn't charted, and hasn't been nominated for any major awards. Mcampany (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mcampany (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that any sources support notability under WP:NMUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shehzad[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The three references listed do not mention him and a Google search resulted in only passing non-significant mentions. // Timothy :: talk 00:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deputy comissioners of a district are not a level of position that gives default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorae[edit]

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

Software company that does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This company contains significant mention from Yahoo Finance, other than that it doesn't contain any other reliable and significant sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Contains no reliable, independent, or significant sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: That's a press release reprint ("PR newswire"). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to disagree. I can only see one mention from Yahoo Finance. Per example, The World Economic Forum and Volkswagen are significant, independent and reliable sources and same can be said about the blogs that reference their work related to cobalt in Africa. Furthermore this article references a growing company and we can find related sources in other languages, Dorae as an approved article in Portuguese wikipedia.Bruno Sequito (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruno Sequito: Volkswagen is a car manufacturer, why would a mention from them automatically means notability? They would list any of their partners, they have financial incentives to do that. It is not of interest to the general public, and it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Do you think Wikipedia should have an article for every partner Volkswagen ever had? Why is Dorae such a notable partner? It is not even the exclusive subject of that news story of Volkswagen. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if there are reputable sources, they should already be there per WP:BURDEN. I am not convinced that they exist. @Bruno Sequito:. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sources are reputable, relevant and articles are specific to Dorae. @Ysangkok:. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Sequito (talk • contribs)

@Bruno Sequito: Which sources are reputable? FastCompany? Their whole business is to do sensationalistic articles of 'upcoming' companies, and they won't ever mention 99% of them again! Tell me about your favorite source, and I'll tell you how it isn't proper. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Claiming sources are notable does not make them so. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, By looking at the references we can see that their notability is not a one-time thing, and furthermore it seems like they were involved in notable events, for example, the World Economic Forum and a Hackathon sponsored by Volkswagen. About their references: Global Trade Review (GTR) is a respected news source and event organiser for global trade and supply chain finance industries and therefore strong in the company related business. FinSMEs is widely used as a reference in many wikipedia articles. RyanBahn (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RyanBahn: GTR is respected by whom? It is not enough to simply assert it. It is pay-to-publish just like FinSMEs. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: So, are you going to say we can't use any magazines or newspapers? 100% of them need advertising or some kind of sponsorship to survive, they have owners with their own interests, we could say none are independent. Bruno Sequito (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, GTR, FinSMEs and WEF are notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodpeek (talk • contribs) 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodpeek: why do you think FinSMEs is a reputable source? It is a self-admitted blog, which is even pay-to-publish! See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs. Do you disagree with any of this? Look how many VC deals they list! Do you think each of these blurbs warrant Wikipedia articles? --Ysangkok (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Woodpeek (talk · contribs) and RyanBahn (talk · contribs) are both new accounts with first edits made less than three weeks ago. Fishy! --Ysangkok (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, amongst many others, World Economic Forum, Volkswagen and GTR are in fact notable, independent and reliable sources. Bruno Sequito (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruno Sequito: you can only vote once, please strike the keep here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1: it is misleading to use the word "vote", since it is WP:NOTAVOTE. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ysangkok (talk · contribs) I understand your concern but there is nothing fishy about a reference to a software company that has several notable references. Is there any reference in particular you want to discuss? Also I do not know who is RyanBahn.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ysangkok (talk · contribs) There are references from the World Economic Forum (Dorae is a technology pioneer of WEF) and allAfrica (Largest distributor of African news and information worldwide). These two references are considered independent and notable. There are also references from several other sources.
Delete There appears to have been some sort of canvassing going on in this AFD, but it's pretty obvious that none of these sources show significant coverage of this topic. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FenixFeather: All that is said in the article is verified by the references. Bruno Sequito (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One can google and see there is significant coverage of this topic including from AllAfrica. The fact this company has a lot of coverage from African sources does not remove credibility. It is ok to have African sources in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.67.222 (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Congo-Kinshasa: Congo Women Miners to Become Peace Ambassadors? That article simply mentions Dorae out of the blue, not explaining anything about how it relates to the story. How is an article like that supposed to be trusted? Or are you talking about this two paragraph "article": Congo-Kinshasa: Firms Invest in Technology to Track DRC Minerals? They wrote "conflit-hit". Not a sign of good journalism. Nobody asserted that African sources are not permitted, but AllAfrica doesn't look like well-researched, and it even looks like it is pay-to-publish. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllAfrica aggregates news from generally reliable sources (here, The EastAfrican). But neither of those articles is significant coverage of Dorae in any event. (BTW a full copy of that second reference is available here -- still not significant coverage in full form.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ysangkok (talk · contribs) it is not reasonable to say the largest and most important African news distributor is not well researched because they wrote “conflit-hit”. I find such sentence obnoxious if not racist. People do not write the same English in Nairobi, Edinburgh or Los Angeles. DailyMail is pay-to-publish. AllAfrica is not. Single reason this article is being nominated for deletion is the fact most part of the news come from the work they do in AFRICA and you find such references not credible. Incredibly sad.

LOL. The reason I nominated this article for deletion is that, after finding Torre de Moncorvo mines and thinking it was a nice little article so I should check for other drafts by the same author, I discovered the opposite, that there was an author with apparent undisclosed COI issues who was drafting a number of junk articles, one of which (Dorae) slipped through the cracks. I have written/improved more articles about underrepresented portions of the world (including Africa) than the vast majority of Wikipedia editors. A few examples off the top of my head include Agriculture in Senegal, Agriculture in Benin, Markets in Benin, Foreign trade of Benin, Certificate of occupancy (land tenure), and Malaria in Benin. So stop with the nonsense. I'll shed some crocodile tears for you because your client's article (or an article about your company?) is getting deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) all your references (I kid you not) about “underrepresented portions of the world (including Africa)” are from American or first world sources. You write about Senegal and Benin and you cannot find one single African source. I guess because nothing is credible in Africa. We need to read what a “LA big law firm lawyer” writes about Africa to know what is going on there. If there is one article about a company that is known in Africa and is created by an African individual then such article must be deleted (because the references are mainly from African sources). This company is even a WEF partner because the work they do in Africa but still LA times does not speak about it.

FYI, I defended the reliability of the AllAfrica sources above. The problem is that the discussion of Dorae in those sources is very cursory. If you have African sources discussing Dorae in more depth, please add them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) I was not the writer of this article. It happens I know the company because of the work they are doing in Republic Democratic of Congo and checked the Wikipedia after they were announced the WEF technology partner for supply chain. I literally just added a link to IDG Connect that speaks about the work Dorae did for the mining of cobalt in Democratic Republic of Congo. And thanks for speaking with me in a polite and nice way. Again, the work they are doing in certain countries in Africa is very substantial and is very well documented in local sources and by the WEF.
Comment, Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs) and Ysangkok (talk · contribs) I am an Angolan post doctorate researcher. I have no clients and I own no company. I am a first time editor of Wikipedia and I have an interest in global trade in general (and yes, GTR is the most relevant publication there is about global trade) and Africa in particular. Your comments about GTR and AllAfrica shows nothing more than a lack of respect for people that live and work in Africa (rather than write about what is going on in Africa). I am very disappointed with Wikipedia and I see no reason to delete Dorae article. Dorae should stay. I also think people should be treated with respect even when they disagree.
Keep The World Economic Forum is a good source. And I am not really following the plot here about Africa. They have press there too, right? That counts same as anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finsterlives38 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Froala Editor[edit]

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

Froala Editor may not meet the notability requirements. It also lacks sources, and I have yet to find very many. It seems the article was written as an advert, not an encylopædia page, by people affiliate with the subject. It may, however, be notable enough to keep on Wikipedia. GideonGrinberg (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reputable coverage. It is listed in sites like g2.com but that site will list whatever product. It was covered in apnews[34] but that is just a reprint of Business Wire which basically prints any corporate news, AFAIK. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don’t think the subject is notable at all, the entire article is written like promotion.It fails WP:NSOFT Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same arguments apply as at the 1st AFD. I would have just gone for G4 speedy. No WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources to establish WP:notability. Google searches not finding many hits. Editor has a possible WP:COI and all their edits are to do with this software. noq (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One glance at the article does indicate that it is as of now very promotional, if the article is kept that needs to be changed anyway.★Trekker (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestris - promotional, rather than notable --DannyS712 (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for your feedback. We have taken it into account and we have removed any comment that could look promotional or subjective.
We have checked other genealogy software pages to make sure the newly written page is now similar to others in terms of style and content.
Our intention is to ensure english speaking people have a fact based description of Ancestris. Our english speaking users have asked for it. For reference we have a wikipedia page here https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestris. It is also available is a few other languages and english is the main language missing.
We do hope that the content is now in line with the Wikipedia expectations. We are looking forward to hearing from you.
Best regards.
Ancestris representative
Fred Lapeyre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EFBE:40E0:5769:CE91:6AE9:23F (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think anything has changed since the last AfD? Why is it more notable now? It is probably great software, but it doesn't pass GNG. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have'nt look the first version! Look Gramp's page and the Ancestris's page they are similar now! Why Gramps and not Ancestris? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Gramps could be deleted too since it has only primary sources. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How to talk about software without saying what it does? Give us a page of correct genealogical software according to you! We will copy it.
To be objective when talking about a software we describe the different features and the initial page was very far from putting them all. The initial page was very sober; in the current page there is no more that really makes you want to go further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestris is the fourth genealogy software used in France, we have rewiews in English, Spanish and German. On Ancestris site you can see the numbers of users through the world. I understand that Genealogy softwares have a small audience, but Ancestris is known around the world. Ancestris Wikipedia page exists in French, Spanish, Russian, Danish, Polish, Cech, Norvegian and Greek. It's really surprising that this software can't have a page in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, read WP:COI about why it is a bad idea to create pages about something you are involved in. Secondly, read WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT about notability criteria. Also read WP:reliable sources. Other language Wikis have their own criteria about what qualifies for an article - just because they exist there does not mean they are appropriate here. noq (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The content seems to be widely used, and there are references too. but when I look at the last AFD it gives an overall impression that the creators are focusing majorly in convincing by commenting stuffs rather than improvising the article of factual and referral point of view.Dtt1^Talk 13:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Does not show to be notable. COI involvement (a collaboration) to get the subject covered fails to present a neutral point of view thus presenting a promotional tone. Verifiablity is a policy and explains "Inline citations" and why they must be used. General sources can be just misplaced "External links" when they are not used specifically to verify content and a source can be used for content while not necessarily advancing notability. Considering the potential COI this should have been presented at WP:AFC, instead of being recreated, so it was probably a candidate for a speedy deletion. While new editors are always appreciated there are considerations when SPA's are involved concerning advocacy. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Last) Good evening,
I deeply regret that you're not being open-minded enough. I regret your prejudice against the editor. Yes, I am a member of the development team in the broadest sense of the word for this software. No, contrary to what you say, I know how to remain neutral and objective. Yes some things probably don't belong where they are put, but NOTHING prevents you from modifying the page accordingly (This is the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia). I regret more than anything your obvious lack of accompaniment outside of a 'RTFM' (Read your damn manual again) that doesn't incline to discussion and sharing. I made a significant effort by deleting 2/3 of the initial page. I feel I have done my fair share, but you have given nothing in return.
As far as sources are concerned, I only know the original as being reliable, all the others are indicative AND must therefore be verified. This is the B.A.-BA of the genealogist and the historian.
If I strictly follow your so-called recommendations most of the software pages MUST be removed simply because they were obviously written by people related to the software (not that in genealogy we have seen others).
You cannot enrich Wikipedia with such strict positions. You are, in fact, despising all English-speaking users of our software, and through them you are snubbing our entire community.
Now if you really want to remove this page we will know to say that we tried and that you rejected us on non-objective but subjective grounds. If you really want this page to be created designate 1 person as our interlocutor who is open-minded and willing to take our point of view into account. Deleting the page behind this message will tell everything about you. I'm usually more inclined to dialogue, but this is a dialogue without the prospect of rational compromise.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

If you wish we can put a link to our press review, where you can see that we are frequently quoted in the French-speaking genealogical press. I am not able to say if these are the only places. Of course they are not exclusive articles but they come back regularly with praise. Our only publicity is word of mouth. We have just been placed first in a survey ahead of the two heavyweights in the francophone market. If you think we can use this link here for you to judge for yourself.
The English-speaking world is starting to seriously look at our software with benevolence, the map of registered users is proof of it.
https://docs.ancestris.org/books/communication/page/parutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you still fail to address the issues that have been raised. Wikipedia uses the WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG guidelines to judge notability, these have been arrived at by consensus of Wikipedia editors - it is not arbitrarily designed to be prejudiced against your software. The WP:COI page explains why creating articles about your own products is discouraged. Can you explain why you want a page on the English Wikpedia for your software? noq (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Thank you for asking this question about why we would like a page on the English Wikpedia for our software.
The main reason comes from our users. We do have a growing number of English speaking users around the world, (e.g. US, Canada, UK, Australia, South Africa) and some of them regularly ask us why we do not have an English page on Wikipedia. They also mention we should ask for one like the other genealogy sofware. I guess it is a recognition issue : if a word is in the dictionnary, it exists. And vice versa.
Another reason is that the Ancestris name and reference appear in the list of genealogy software available in English and we think it would help readers to have a minimal description attached to it.
My undestanding is that the English version of Wikipedia represents an encyclopedia to all English speaking people worlwide. That would just help them. Let us know if this is a misunderstanding.
Please let us also answer another question you did ask us without making it so explicit : « why can’t you understand our rules ? »
Well, we agree with you. According to your rules, we should not have a page. From an absolute standpoint, your comment and your rationale are perfectly right to us. Ancestris probably does not have enough notability today to appear in Wikipedia. When we read the WP guidelines, GNG, COI, NSOFT, we did anticipate that.
What strikes us though, is from a relative standpoint. Even though the WP.OTHERSTUFFEXIST guideline suggest we should not, we do compare with other genealogy software pages. « When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes ». Well, then, it seems to us that the above criteria and arguments do not stand anymore. It is quite striking.
We are very respectful of all the other genealogy software and we will only mentioned some here to illustrate our view. Our software originally comes from another one called GenealogyJ. Let me indicate here we are very grateful to his author as Ancestris would not exist without him. But then we cannot help wondering why there would be a page on GenealogyJ given the above rules. Did these rules exist at the time ? From a GNG perspective, in Western Europe at least, Ancestris has far many more users and ranks much higher in notability. From a COI perspective, the GenealogyJ page references were written by the author. When we read the references provided by most of the other genealogy sofware, Gramps in particular, they hardly ever come from third parties or notable sources. If you were to scan the genealogy sofware list, very few would comply with the GNG and COI rules. If it were just a couple of them, I guess we could understand. As genalogists, we are rational people. All these observations get us very confused regarding the logic and criteria used.
At the end of the day, you will decide what you feel is right and we will abide by it of course. As one of the five pilars says, « Wikipedia has no firm rules ». So reversly, I hope you now understand why we had this discussion. Thank you again for the opportunity to have this debate. This was interesting and we did enjoy it. Now we will hope for the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not established in the article. A quick Google search does not provide any usable sources to back the subject. Also, the entire article sounds like a promotion. There's also a potential conflict of interest in here. HiwilmsTalk 00:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if the creator had spent more time trying to understand our notability guidelines and see how they might apply to the software instead of arguing here, they might have been able to keep. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made a page, after pruning, looking at what else was being done. Our page is currently similar to other genealogy software that are distributed by prestigious OSes.Ours is distributed by Emmabuntus, Haiku and, as we have just learned recently, by LinuxMint. It is likely that other OS distributions have also included it without our knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, and According to your rules, we should not have a page. From an absolute standpoint, your comment and your rationale are perfectly right to us. Ancestris probably does not have enough notability today to appear in Wikipedia. On a sidenote, I appreciate the team behind this software being polite in the AfD. As for other non-notable software, we'll probably consider that for deletion too, if it is nominated. You can feel free to nominate them yourself, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but these items already exist. By taking your own rules they are problematic because obviously made by the authors of the said software.
We are not for revenge by deleting articles that seem to be incorrect. We are very open-minded and accept differences as long as it is not contrary to good morals. There are many more of you than we are to check what we say and enforce your rules. In spite of this I don't see you suppressing some software by strictly applying your criteria.
Ancestris is more and more known even in the United States. Of course we are very far from Root Magic which only works under Windows whereas Ancestris has freed itself from this link to 1 OS. Our reputation is growing year after year and this all over the world. In France, we are the third actor of genealogy software which shows our seriousness and our reputation of quality software.
It seems to me that Wikipedia is also an image of quality. Ancestris helped a scientist to work on cystic fibrosis. If we were not serious and open we could never have helped this scientist. We would have been quoted on page 53 of her book according to Google (I did not check).

Delete Fails WP:GNG. There are many non-notable software articles on Wikipedia, due to people trying to increase the SEO of their software because of the importance search engines place on Wikipedia articles. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For Ancestris, Google referencing is done WITHOUT Wikipedia. It arrives very far after all the ordinary entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannig35-38 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATTRAQT[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article including all the companies which is not even functional or being merged into one another. this is classic example of blatant misuse of wikipedia being used for promoting one self and his own companies. This article has misused all the parameters from using Press coverage, non-notable media mentioned to the editing by none other than paid editor on wikipedia. I am nominating all of his companies on the ground of misuse of wikipedia for promoting personally. Light2021 (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2014-12 no consensus

Logs: 2014-04 ✗ A7

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think the sources are notable. Sources like PR Newswire seem like put they put anything online, I don't think that is a noteworthy source. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, a Google News search for this company shows that some noteworthy sources do exist; even if the article appears promotional, the subject of the article appears notable. Balle010 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balle010: just hinting that reliable source may exist is not sufficient. Which are they, and why are they reliable? Like I mentioned before, media like Business Wire is not sufficient, companies literally pay them to print PR releases. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: You are right. I didn't read through the sources that deeply the first time. There's almost nothing.

@Balle010: If you strike-through the statements that you now retract, it will be easier for the admin to see that there is nobody opposing deletion. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My "delete" opinion in the December 2014 AfD included search evaluation of the company's previous name, however other participants in that AfD saw more value in what I would regard as start-up coverage of AIM listing etc. The article material added subsequently is acquisition and reporting information, most recently appended with a long paragraph giving the CV of the incoming CEO - more suitable for the appointment press release or corporate webpage. Some discussion of the company's performance and prospects can be found on investor sites (e.g. "Simply Wall St") but I don't see that as rising above "routine coverage ... of changes in share or bond prices, of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts": trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. It is a company going about its business, but I still don't see evidence of notability. (However, if others disagree and this article continues, some form of page protection may be considered so that the article doesn't function as an alternative web presence for the company?) AllyD (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This tiny company sells merchandising software to larger retailers (Tesco or whoever) so that online shoppers are presented with a mix of complementary products, showing what's new, or related to the shopper's interests, or merchandise the retailer wants to push. You could call them online advertisers. (Hm.) If this company had any significant accomplishments, relationships, players or products, this article would have been sure to mention it in this thicket of corporate trivia, cut back and regrown several times now. The page history gives background to AllyD's suggestion that page protection or salting (if deleted) might be necessary. This article was from its creation in Sept 2014 recognized as solely promotional in tone, and its subject not suitable for an encyclopedia. There was that previous AfD. A couple of main contributors had short histories of 100% corporate promotional material -- Kentunderstand is one, Hdeimbacher is another. (Kentunderstand also left us the similar Maistro, also promotional, also AfD'ed for the same reasons.) This article most recently re-expanded by a user with this busy and wide-ranging edit history. Uncritical mentions and showcases in the business press don't constitute reliable sources. This is a press release. --Lockley (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal[edit]

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

This is not written like an encyclopedia article. It only has primary sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article would need to be completely rewritten in order to conform to Wikipedia standards, however it does not appear that the necessary reliable sources exist to do that. In its current state, the only option is to delete. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puzzledvegetable: I just added some non-primary sources. Your point is now moot and invalid. --187.178.163.96 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added crypto sites. We need coverage in Reliable Sources - such as mainstream press coverage, or peer-reviewed academic coverage - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard:. How do I identify peer-reviewed academic coverage? Are any of the sources I just added peer-reviewed? Like for example, Google claims the paper Atomic Cross-Chain Swaps has been cited 108 times. Is it peer reviewed? --187.178.163.96 (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of RS coverage. Possible redirect to Bitcoin - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard:. Wouldn't it be better just to move it back to Bitcoin Core since that is where I moved it from? Links and bookmarks from other internet pages would be less likely to be broken that way, don't you think? --187.178.163.96 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bitcoin or Bitcoin Core Agree with norm / other Wikipedians, at this moment I don't think BIP has gain notability beyond groups within Bitcoin / Crypto society. The information on the current article may be useful complement to BitCoin so I suggest merge with Bitcoin or Bitcoin Core and do a redirect. (Honestly while I am very familiar and has a strong interest in cryto, I don't know if Bitcoin Core as a software meets GNG either, I doubt other Wikipedians will consider it as notable.) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 22:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xinbenlv:. Ok, I have nominated Bitcoin Core for deletion as you suggested. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Core. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: the Bitcoin Core nomination is not useful. Merging this BIP content into Bitcoin core would make sense. You should check Bitcoin Core for GNG prior to nomination, it has widespread coverage in mainstream press (NYT, WSJ, Fortune, NYT, New Yorker, etc). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be merged into Bitcoin Core, the BIPs process is not part of Bitcoin Core, it's a separate community run effort. (In fact, I believe by the numbers Bitcoin core doesn't even implement a majority of the specified BIPs). I don't think merging is appropriate: the article is mostly minutia. If there are some good citations for high profile/important BIPs they could be moved to Bitcoin but otherwise I don't see what should be merged. --Gmaxwell (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gmaxwell: who will decide whether there are good citations, and when will they decide? --Ysangkok (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The general notability guidelines are not met. The newly-added sources may be independent and reliable, but as far as I can tell, they fail to significantly cover the topic of BIPs. Each source discusses a specific new feature of Bitcoin, only discussing the BIP process in passing. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BenKuykendall:, what makes you think it has to pass under GNG? It is a niche article. Besides, the GNG notes that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists". This article is a list. --187.178.163.96 (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@187.178.163.96: it is not clear that this is a list -- a list would be titled something like List of Bitcoin Improvement Proposals and would need unambiguous inclusion criteria (listing selected BIPs is not sufficient). Regardless, a list must pass equivalent notability standards. To quote WP:LISTN: the list topic must be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. To echo my comment above: the present sources discuss individual BIPs, not the group or set of BIPs as a whole. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / smerge to Bitcoin. Everything has to pass GNG. All other inclusion guidelines are just indications of what is likely to pass GNG because GNG is based on core policy. Guy (help!) 00:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Bitcoin (well, parts of it). Isn't of free-standing interest outside of Bitcoin. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladislav Mecir:, you said at Talk:Bitcoin_scalability_problem#Article_necessary? that the Bitcoin article was too big. Does this mean you disagree with merging more content into it? --Ysangkok (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, not Delete I support merging this into the main Bitcoin article. The information is important enough for the development of Bitcoin and has several references and citations that could be kept with some cleanup. --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Molochmeditates: which references do you think should be kept? The articles by Aaron van Wirdum, are they good enough? What about the journal articles, are they primary sources or not? Which papers are peer reviewed, which are not? I think nobody will do anything, and everything will be deleted. How are you going to merge anything after the article is gone? --Ysangkok (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the event of a merge outcome, the closer simply redirects. The edit history is still visible, and so the old contents are available for editors to incorporrate into the target. As Ladislav Mecir notes and in keeping with WP:SUMMARY, though, we should not merge this article with the overlong parent article: if we want to merge we should find another target. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge with Bitcoin. The Bitcoin article was marked as too long and split to subpages such as History of bitcoin, Economics of bitcoin, etc. After those splits, the prose size of the Bitcoin article is 48,273 characters at present. Seeing proposals to merge several articles into it including this one, I am afraid that the prose would become unreadable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are there any notable Bitcoin implementations that make use of the BIP process other than Bitcoin Core? — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: yes, Drivechain implements BIP-300 and BIP-301. BIP-158 has been supported in btcd for a long time, and is still not supported in Bitcoin Core. BIP-37 specifies a feature removed from Core but still available in Bitcoin forks. Electrum still implements BIP-70. Bitcoin forks still implement BIP-61. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "not written like an encyclopedia article" is not a valid deletion rationale, it is a motivation to improve the article. The claim about only citing primary sources is now invalid since journal references were added. Given that the article explains the scientific foundations of Bitcoin, it is hard to find sources given that they are drowned out by politics. But we are not deleting obscure physics articles and given that these topics have the attention of academics is enough to keep them, for the same reason we keep a physics article. I know we have a strict restrictions of cryptocurrencies, but this article is so technical that it is effectively removed from the currency aspect of these distributed ledgers, and we can see as merely a list of technical foundations of distributed ledgers. Note that I am 187.178.163.96. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the scholarly refrences are in the proceedings of one conferences proceeding, whose most recent CfP is https://fc20.ifca.ai/cfp.html - generally conference peer review is more cursory than journal peer review and the program committee for this conference is so large that I am doubtful that the committee is very consistent. I think these sources are usable, since the papers can be reacted to, and they have some value for documenting the interest of the BIP process, but they should be treated with a bit of caution. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The new journal references do not appear to actually discuss BIPs, but rather seem to be proposals for restructuring bitcoin in some significant way. We would need secondary sources that actually describe BIPs and the BIP process. Still fails WP:GNG – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bitcoin. There is a consensus here that a standalone article is inappropriate, and that some material may be salvageable. The SIZESPLIT concern at the target is valid, but did not receive sufficient consideration, and the target is not so large that size becomes an overwhelming concern. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Core[edit]

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

Since the Bitcoin network is dominated by Bitcoin Core nodes, it makes no sense to have a separate article on Bitcoin Core. Furthermore, the article has only industry sources that are vested in Bitcoin being popular, like "Bitcoin Magazine", which was founded by Vitalik Buterin (now Ethereum). And Andreas Antonopoulos is selling a Bitcoin related book. There are no general news coverage, which is required per Wikipedia:GNG. Ysangkok (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think Bitcoin Core as a software has not gain notability independent from Bitcoin. Since software and its protocol is an important part of Bitcoin technology. I propose the content should be merge with Bitcoin. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not interesting outside of the subject of Bitcoin. Articles like this just tend to gather bits of rapidly outdated minutia and highly uneven coverage. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gmaxwell, it is inappropriate for you to be pushing deletion for an organization you have been associated with and may have received compensation from. The definition of WP:COI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin core is piece of open source software, it's not an organization (so much for demonstrating your understanding of the subject matter...). It has never compensated me or AFAIK anyone else nor would it have any means to do so. I also haven't been involved with it for years. Your allegation is extremely insulting, particularly because the only reason I commented here is because my input was specifically requested. To suggest that any of the nearly thousand people who made contributions to it can't state their view on removing an article about it is not only contrary to Wikipedia policy, but also not in the interest of good editorship. --Gmaxwell (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jtbobwaysf just edited the article to insert content regarding me (where none was previously present) in an apparent retaliation for my opinion that the article should be deleted. The claim regarding me is also factually false, further highlighting the difficulty of providing accurate coverage for a niche subject of only domain specific interest and the rest of the substance of his edit is only incidentally about Bitcoin Core and instead turn the article into a bitcoin block size debate coatrack.--Gmaxwell (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf this isn't correct - involved editors, even article subjects, can comment on an AFD just fine - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks for clarification. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gmaxwell:, I deny adding it as retaliation as you allege. I did add a number of sources to demonstrate notability, as is common to do after an article is nominated for AfD. You point out that I may misunderstand the definition of Bitcoin Core, I had thought it was also an organization of sorts. If it is just an open source software, and what I am referring to relates to the Bitcoin scalability problem, then I am indeed misunderstanding. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article has decent sources and has valuable enough information that it should be merged into the main Bitcoin article. Since Bitcoin doesn't have a "specification" aside from the code of Bitcoin Core, I think this information best lives inside the main Bitcoin article. --Molochmeditates (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this refers to an implementation of bitcoin and is subject of widespread coverage and controversy. Added a few sources today, the nominator didnt do their duty to check this for RS prior to nomination. I added today NYT, WSJ, Financial Times, New Yorker, etc. Frivolous nomination, the article does need cleanup, but it easily passes WP:GNG. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf:. Hi! I am so happy you entered the discussion, I appreciate your input a lot. I think that the NewYorker piece is not actually about software, it is about the drama. There are so many Bitcoin clients, and their drama is inseparable. Like, we have Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited. Wouldn't it make more sense to cover all of it in an article called Bitcoin drama? A reader that sees the NewYorker article and wants to read more drama, has to make an arbitrary choice between looking at the Bitcoin Core article and the Bitcoin XT article (which I have also nominated for deletion, your input is appreciated there too!). Why confuse the reader like that? It should be covered centrally since it is an intertwined story. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think "bitcoin drama" would be a good article title. Are you proposing that? Or are you making light of an AfD discussion? Jtbobwaysf (talk)

@Jtbobwaysf: hey, please address my points instead of bikeshedding. It doesn't matter what the article is called. Actually, it exists already and is called Bitcoin scalability problem, even though I don't think it is a meaningful name. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bikeshedding? Never heard of that, but upon googling it, it appears to be what we editors do at wikipedia ;-) Was the question if we should merge all of these articles to Bitcoin Scalability Problem? If that is the question, I think it would be ok with the exception of this particular article that you have nominated. It appears you nominated all of your above mentioned articles for AfD over the past couple of days, as well as started a debate over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bitcoin_Magazine_reputable if Bitcoin Magazine could be used as an RS. If it could (I am opposed to that), it would add dozens of additional sources to the same articles you have nominated for AfD. Might have been easier to discuss on one of the talk pages first, rather than proposing a new article on this AfD called Bitcoin drama (If that was your intention), calling into question the RS we use, and nominating a handful of articles all at the same time. As Ladislav points out below, a wholesale merge of 5 or so articles to the main article is also not a reasonable suggestion, nor is delete in the case of this article, as this article itself has dozens of RS (just look at google books and news, it is in fact hard to browse through google news as there are so many low quality sources). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with arguments made by Gmaxwell. I also agree with David Gerard that it is fine for Gmaxwell to discuss the deletion of the article. I note that the recent edit by Jtbobwaysf that a specific person is a notable developer of Bitcoin Core does not look encyclopedic in the form in which he added it to the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bitcoin or somewhere - it's not like there are multiple popular implementations - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we had this discussion once before, and the result was merge: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin-Qt. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable enough in itself to have an article, but it has some good sources. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to comment on this AfD.[35] I do not believe that this was canvassing, because I am known to be neutral on those aspects of bitcoin that generate so much heat; my interest is in the mathematical details of the cryptography and the engineering details of the mining hardware. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Second choice Delete. Fails GNG; none of the sources in this article establish notability as something different from Bitcoin. Please note that the citations to The New Yorker and MIT Technology Review fail to mention Bitcoin Core. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: the New Yorker source is all about Bitcoin Core, please read it. It starts out saying : "Aterrific rumpus broke out in the world of Bitcoin last week, when veteran developers Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn published Bitcoin XT, a competing version of Bitcoin Core..." This type of indepth coverage by a top shelf non-crypto source is key to demonstrating notability. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: the New Yorker article is a reporting on a drama, not actually talking about software. That is why it is not "all about Bitcoin Core". The cryptocurrency scene is full of people getting angry at each other and media will happily write about it. To write about it, you need to give the parties names, in this case it was XT and Core. It does not mean that the coverage is sufficient just because the subject matter in question was named. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again referring to the "bitcoin drama" concept that doesnt seem to relate to this discussion, or at least you haven't answered above if you were suggesting creating a Bitcoin Drama article. You admit that the media has given a name "Bitcoin Core" name to one of groups the belligerents in the block size debate. If that is the case, then we would cover that in this naming issue in the article, maybe with a section on that treatment, saying the article refers to two concepts (software and a name of a group of people, and maybe that naming is incorrect or disputed as Greg points out). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge to Bitcoin. The Bitcoin article was marked as too long and split to subpages such as History of bitcoin, Economics of bitcoin, etc. After those splits, the prose size of the Bitcoin article is 48,273 characters at present. Seeing proposals to merge several articles into it including this one, I am afraid that the prose would become unreadable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The technology is notable because it is the core implementation of Bitcoin. The existence of a separate page is justified by WP:SUMMARY. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst:, there is no "Core" of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a set of undocumented protocols, any piece of software that implements them 'correctly' will constitute Bitcoin. In fact, it has happened (in bugs and fixes) that Bitcoin "hard-forked" and broke backwards compatibility. In those cases, actually the thing people mean when they say "Bitcoin" would refer to the abstract concept of the Bitcoin protocols as they are supposed to work, as it was before a bug was addressed with a hard-fork. After the fact, you observe whether the fork was accepted, and then the new hard fork can be a new concrete manifestation of whatever protocol people mean when they Bitcoin. So it is naïve to say that Bitcoin Core defines Bitcoin. Furthermore you are not addressing the issue of reliable sources. Even if you were correct, we would still not be able to keep the article since there are no independent sources with anything meaningful to say about the actual software, everybody is talking about politics and economics. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. "Bitcoin Core" refers to a software implementation AND a group of developers that develop it. You are talking about not having a "Bitcoin core", with a small "c". This article refers to the proper name of a group (thus the big "C" word Core), and it is not referring to a core of anything. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: if you think the group of people developing Bitcoin Core is notable, then find me a reference that supports that. My argument (which was refuting Chalst's argument, and not redefining Core as some social construct as you do) is that Core would indeed be more notable if it was a central piece of how Bitcoin works. But given that Chalst has not responded, it is likely that they now know, as you should, that Core does not define what Bitcoin is, and that it is simply a bunch of code like so much other, and that we do not have any proper references about said code to justify having an article about it. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit above you refer to the media using names to represent the sides of the argument (which sounds like my argument), and one of those names is Bitcoin Core. Immediately above you are arguing that Core is the name for the software, and not the group of people (which is Charles and Greg's argument). It is not correct to demand Charles to respond to your ping on an AfD and then state that he must have changed his view if he doesnt respond... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a lengthy discussion, it's clear that the sources do not discuss Bitcoin Core in any significant way. It needs more than just mentions. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BitTornado[edit]

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

Notability not established for obscure BitTorrent client last updated in 2011 with ABSOLUTELY NO MAINSTREAM NEWS COVERAGE Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 22:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: doesn't appear to be notable according to Jtbobwaysf: User_talk:Jtbobwaysf#BitTorrent_client_nominated_for_deletion. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont count my vote. My comments were made on a talk page and not intended to be an RfC vote. I dont think it is proper to move my comments here and imply a vote. As I said on the talk page I am not familiar with this subject and was too lazy at the time to do the search necessary to made an educated judgement. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: it is WP:NOTAVOTE anyway, so there is no counting taking place... ---Ysangkok (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, you posted to his talk page asking him to comment here, saying that you thought he'd take your side here. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Can you expand on that logic? What makes you think Gmax's side is not my side? I only asserted that Jtbobwaysf was in a feud with Gmax, how does that relate to me? --Ysangkok (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You actually wrote "@Jtbobwaysf:. It was brought up in an argument against Gmax. Since you are now also in a feud with him, that would make you liable to take side in these matters also." Are you saying that you weren't arguing with "Gmax" - who is Gmax, by the way? Doug Weller talk 12:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: if you search for "Gmax" on today's AfD log, you can find all ongoing discussions: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_July_13. I hope this is informative, please do let me know if it isn't sufficient. I also created the article Gregory Maxwell, and it got nuked. If you click the red link, there will be a link to the deletion discussion. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Brotherhood[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. The article states "Due to a variety of reasons there is very limited information on the First Brotherhood" and I was not able to find more info on the organization. The material should possibly be merged into Albanians in Egypt where there is a mention of the First Brotherhood. // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I originally planned to create an article on the Albanian socities in that time's Egypt, but during the research process I came accross sufficient material on this particualar society to sustain an article of its own. More content can be added using other sources such as [36][37][38]. Azemi too who is already used to some degree on the article. Anyways, I do not have the time to work on the article at the moment at least. Others can make their input either here with opinions or by editing the article itself. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Albanians in Egypt. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in bibliography the name doesn't usually come up as "First Brotherhood" in Albanian, but simply as "the Brotherhood" and in translated works it's even more difficult, but sources do exist. I have began expanding the article's bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the feedback from Ktrimi991 and Maleschreiber, I will happily switch to Keep so there is time to expand the article. I don't think I can properly withdrawn my nomination since there is one Merge vote, but if Sadko agrees I will withdraw the nomination. // Timothy :: talk 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources and original filer; I invoke WP:SNOW for anyone who wants to close.--Calthinus (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NX technology. This discussion serves to demonstrate two things; 1) the subject of this discussion meets GNG, and 2) the article as written violates NPOV, and specifically NOTPROMO, almost to the point where CSD#G11 would apply. While "AfD is not for cleanup" is often cited, it's a less persuasive point when the article is this bad. I am preserving the history for anyone who wishes to expand this using the sources presented here. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NoMachine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like an advertisement (re-)created by an editor who confesses his COI. Most sources are company sources. The Banner talk 12:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is not an advertisement. The page in question is no different to the other brands pages which talk about remote desktop. I'd like to understand the differences? If a user can't be associated to a company for fear of seeming "promotional", yet a normal user can't upload information because they don't have enough references or are considered not knowledgeable enough, how does one actually attempt to improve people's lives if one can't inform people of the available options? This page wasn't even created by the brand in question and a redirect was implemented by some unknown source. You requested a product page and that is what I provided in as neutral language as possible with the intention of updating resources that Wikipedia approves of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokerbean (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have requested a sockpuppet investigation as I do not believe that everything goes fair and square here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stokerbean. The Banner talk 15:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Sockmaster and two sockpuppets blocked. The Banner talk

Delete The editor's response unfortunately does not change the concerns about independent, reliable sources and promotional content. --Micky (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

EC-Council (2011). "Chapter 7: NoMachine". Virtualization Security. Clifton Park, New York: Cengage. pp. 7-14–7-14. ISBN 978-1-4354-8869-4. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Blechynden, Daniel (2020-04-03). "NoMachine review. How well does this remote desktop program perform—find out in our NoMachine review". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Opris, Elena (2015-02-27). "NoMachine Review - Free and Powerful Remote Desktop Tool". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Wycislik-Wilson, Mark (2020-05-15). "NoMachine 6.10.12: A remote access tool with more to offer than most". Macworld. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Kubaliyev, Zholaman M.; Ruzhnikov, Vadim A. (2015). "ПРИМЕНЕНИЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ NX NOMACHINE ДЛЯ ТЕРМИНАЛЬНОГО ПОДКЛЮЧЕНИЯ" [The Use of NX NoMachine for Terminal Connection] (PDF). International Periodic Scientific Journal (in Russian) (2). Scientific World. ISSN 2410-6941. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
郇涛; 王国强; 臧金梅 (2014). "基于Linux的远程桌面控制工具NoMachine NX" [Linux-based remote desktop control tool NoMachine NX]. 消费电子 (in Chinese) (8). 维普: 145–146. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Schooley, Skye (2019-03-04). "NoMachine Review". Business.com. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.

Sources with quotes

EC-Council (2011). "Chapter 7: NoMachine". Virtualization Security. Clifton Park, New York: Cengage. pp. 7-14–7-14. ISBN 978-1-4354-8869-4. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
Blechynden, Daniel (2020-04-03). "NoMachine review. How well does this remote desktop program perform—find out in our NoMachine review". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The review notes:
All things considered, NoMachine is a powerful remote desktop connection manager that enables secure, streamlined remote access. A feature-rich free version is available for non-commercial use, while paid business licenses are available from $44.50 per year.
Meanwhile, we were very impressed with NoMachine’s streamlined user interface and great performance. It’s available on all major operating systems, and all connections are protected by a selection of security features. Note, however, that live customer support is limited to paying subscribers.
Opris, Elena (2015-02-27). "NoMachine Review - Free and Powerful Remote Desktop Tool". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The review notes:
The Good

With this remote desktop tool, you can connect to any computer in the local network which has NoMachine installed to perform file operations, make video recordings, take desktop screenshots, send and receive files, connect to a disk, printer, USB device, network port or smart card reader, provide access to various areas of your computer, use a whiteboard with drawing tools, view live media from the remote PC or even render your animated models.
...

The Bad

As previously mentioned, the app integrates an entry in the Windows autostart sequence and runs at every system startup.

The Truth

Taking everything into account and the fact that this remote desktop tool is free, NoMachine sports powerful options and customization preferences for anyone wanting to connect to remote PCs with minimal effort.
Wycislik-Wilson, Mark (2020-05-15). "NoMachine 6.10.12: A remote access tool with more to offer than most". Macworld. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The review notes:
Based on custom NX technology, NoMachine is a highly advanced remote access, virtualisation and sharing solution that will meet the needs of individuals and businesses alike. Using the server and client software, you can connect to any computer your need to and access the documents you need – working from home means that you will still be able to access everything on your work computer.
...
Despite the underlying complexity of what NoMachine is doing and what it enables you to do, working with the software is pleasingly simple. Speed and security are at a level that will keep everyone happy, and there are some very nice touches such as being able to plug in a USB device – be it storage, a games controller or something else – and use it with the computer you are accessing remotely.
Kubaliyev, Zholaman M.; Ruzhnikov, Vadim A. (2015). "ПРИМЕНЕНИЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ NX NOMACHINE ДЛЯ ТЕРМИНАЛЬНОГО ПОДКЛЮЧЕНИЯ" [The Use of NX NoMachine for Terminal Connection] (PDF). International Periodic Scientific Journal (in Russian) (2). Scientific World. ISSN 2410-6941. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
From the Google Translate of the abstract:
The article analyzes the operation of the NoMachine NX software package. This package has gained great popularity in the environment of Unix-like operating systems, due to its ability to compress the X11 protocol, which allows using the graphical interface on remote terminals using various types of network connections, including analog modems, ADSL, etc.
郇涛; 王国强; 臧金梅 (2014). "基于Linux的远程桌面控制工具NoMachine NX" [Linux-based remote desktop control tool NoMachine NX]. 消费电子 (in Chinese) (8). 维普: 145–146. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The article notes:
摘　要：在服务器应用中，远程桌面访问与控制是一个非常重要且经常使用的手段，本文以RHEL 5.X为例，重点介绍了远程桌面控制工具NoMachine NX的获取使用以及基于Window客户端的使用方法。
From Google Translate:
Abstract: In server applications, remote desktop access and control is a very important and frequently used method. This article uses RHEL 5.X as an example to focus on the acquisition and use of the remote desktop control tool NoMachine NX and the use method based on the Window client.
Schooley, Skye (2019-03-04). "NoMachine Review". Business.com. Archived from the original on 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-20.
The review notes:
Cons

It can also be a drawback that NoMachine's software plans are so specific and advanced. It will require more research on your end to identify what exact computer platforms you will be operating on and what type of connection you would like for each device. The technical specificity and advances of this software can make it difficult to initially implement.
Another downside is the limited features available on the web versions. For example, session recording and some chat features may be limited. There is also limited access for mobile devices, and the initial connection can be tricky. When accessing your PC from a tablet, you must first install an app onto your device. Both the PC and tablet must be on the same network so you can find the IP address to connect.
We did not find grouping tools available for NoMachine. Grouping tools allow you to group certain devices together for quicker access and implementation. They are especially useful for IT technicians. Without grouping tools, IT work can be a bit more laborious.

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

Cunard (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into NX technology, or perhaps that article back to this one, either way. But we shouldn't have two articles on the same software. - MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - May not be written as an advert, but the sources are all spam, or how-to guides, neither of which are reliable sources. Koridas ^talk? 18:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note2: a second sockpuppet investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stokerbean. The Banner talk 15:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per nominator, does not meet General NotablilityVViking_TalkEdits 22:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result: two more sockpuppets blocked. In total sockmaster and 4 sockpuppets. The Banner talk 18:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NoMachine has been covered in multiple reviews and in multiple journal articles. Editors have not explained why these reviews and journal articles are insufficient to establish notability.
Although a merge to NX technology would be preferable to deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, it is fine to have separate articles about NoMachine and NX technology since both are independently notable of each other. NX technology is a "remote desktop sharing protocol" that has implementations of the protocol from Google and NoMachine. NoMachine is notable for having reviews of its software while NX technology is notable because the protocol has been covered by books.
Cunard (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For better consensus on whether to keep, delete, or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they make popular software. I guess it is kinda directed at businesses which makes coverage about them full of fluff, like e.g. zdnet coverage. But I do think it is notable, as a developer of the reference implementation of a widely used protocol. And like I just linked, there are reputable sources like Ziff-Davis. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NoMachine is the company that created the NX protocol for remote desktop. Their software is used at reputable research/scientific centres (I am a researcher where NoMachine products are actually used). Where there's server-based computing involved, it's pretty likely you'll find NoMachine software being used as well. Also, without NX there wouldn't be neatx, freenx, x2go and others. I'm sure it's not impossible to find references in papers talking about NoMachine if this is what is required to make the page more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanatically (talk • contribs) 08:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC) — Fanatically (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin IRA[edit]

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

Notability of company not established as it is only mentioned in isolated 'news-like' articles Ysangkok (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one solid RS coverage is the WSJ; the Barron's piece appears to be investments tips; the rest is not third-party RS coverate - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ayumi Shiina. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anata to Scandal[edit]

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

The series was published in the early 90s (pre-Internet era) and the Japanese Wikipedia does mention that the series had one volume of a novel adaptation, but the article is not sourced and the topic does not pass WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG to have its own article. Japanese Wikipedia also has no sources. lullabying (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ayumi Shiina. The Japanese page is unsourced, so no help there, and a search with the Japanese title only brings up sites where one can buy this series, not any actual coverage of it. As a result, this series fails GNG and NBOOK. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ayumi Shiina. This entire article seems to be based in-universe and has no outside context of the book. Having only a plot summary and a list of characters is not a good sign. Koridas 📣 19:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. Numerically, slightly less than half of all participants in the discussion favor keeping, while slightly over a quarter favor deletion and the rest favor some other resolution, whether merging or redirecting or draftifying. Notably, preference for keeping has become substantially stronger over time, indicating developments with respect to the subject. Moreover, arguments for keeping are well-footed in coverage of the subject as a distinct subject in reliable sources, irrespective of whether the candidacy referenced ultimately turns out to be an unserious effort. BD2412 T 03:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign[edit]

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

C'mon people. Kanye put out one tweet claiming he'll run for president. There's no confirmation, no filing of paperwork. But, naturally, a few publications ran articles on the tweet. The notion that he's actually running for president, rather than going for some publicity, fails WP:V. Not that he wrote the tweet, but that it actually means he's running for president. Some of the article is his back and forth on supporting Trump or Bernie. The rest of this article is WP:SYNTH. His policy on tax reform comes from one of his song lyrics? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wait for the in-depth coverage in reliable sources and demonstration of lasting significance (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N, WP:DELAY, etc.). Not opposed to a redirect to Kanye West, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is too soon. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/Weak Draft - No doubt this has receive so much press, there's no denying that it is notable. This has been five years in the making. Remove the line about tax reform if you have a problem rather than propose deletion, okay? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Edited 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One tweet does not make for a notable event.Calmecac5 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes piece, and it was two tweets actually :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We can always restore if it's not a promotional stunt. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There is currently a single tweet and lots of sources reporting on the tweet. There is no other information that can be provided by reliable sources, so there shouldn't be an article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Though I still think the campaign won't actually happen, the Forbes article has convinced me that this article is notable enough to keep for now. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- and now it's cancelled before it even began.[39] Should have stuck with my first instinct. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would that cancellation take away any notability achieved by the Forbes article? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until we actually know what's going on. Spicy (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Kanye West#Politics. People are going to be searching for this in the coming days, but not enough info has been released yet to necessitate a separate article. Klohinx^talk 04:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all coming from a single tweet. If this isn't just a crazy promotional stunt for a new song or album he is releasing, then reinstate once more details are released. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Wait until there is any evidence of formal paperwork or sincere intent to run, then put article back to mainspace once confirmed. If nothing happens for a while just redirect back to his own article Gaz405 (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Drafity: Given circumstances, it's hard to believe that this isn't something other than only a promotional stunt. Article can move back to main if formal details become confirmed, but for now, its best to redirect to the Politics section on Kanye West or draftify. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity: Until we acquire registration confirmation on some state ballots. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Kanye West#Politics per Klohinx's suggestion. One or two sentences. To be fair, some note should be made of his latest typically delusional, time-wasting, attention-starved outburst. (West's, not Klohinx's.) --Lockley (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may still be early days however the amount of coverage we are seeing in reliable 3rd party sources is enough to fulfill WP:GNG. It is likely that more coverage will come in the coming days (CRYSTAL aside). If it turns out that this is just a publicity stunt, then I'd say maybe delete but at the moment, I'm AGF and taking it on face value. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E, we're seeing third-party sources write the exact same story based on one tweet. That's not significant in-depth coverage. It's news orgs looking for clicks on a slow news day. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu I think your personal belief on whether it should be receiving the coverage it has been getting or not is irrelevant when the outlets themselves conclude it is. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, that news orgs believe the content is WP:SENSATIONAL enough to get clicks on a holiday weekend does not make it notable per WP:GNG. From Vanity Fair: It is unclear if West, who once rapped “now, if I fuck this model, and she just bleached her asshole, and I get bleach on my T-shirt, I’ma feel like an asshole,” is speaking metaphorically.[40] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu The pointlessly crude citation you felt the need to reference aside, any individual with prominence the likes of Mr. West should receive due coverage when he attests to running in the current election. We have no actual reason to not believe him, previously he has stated he will run this election cycle. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, that was purposefully crude, by me and by Vanity Fair. This demonstrates that this "announcement" is sensationalism, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. There's no reason to believe this is real. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu A lyric in one of Mr. West's songs doesn't translate to public statements made by him. Otherwise I assume you take Mr. Freddie Mercury's Bohemian Rhapsody as a murder confession. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, I'm not the one who quoted the lyric. The supposedly "serious" sourcing did, to show what a sensational joke this is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:The C of E. Koopinator (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. No official website or FEC filing, which I doubt will ever materialize. KidAd (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per endorsments from important names. Sources are credible at this time. If in 48 hours this turns into air then I support Delete. At this time this is as notable as any other candidate.BabbaQ (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm reversing my prior decision after finding agreement with BabbaQ. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2020 is NOT the year to delete articles about notable black men running for president! --24.112.201.120 (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — 24.112.201.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

TL;DR: Several users responded negatively to this reasoning and got into long arguments with the OP. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24.112.201.120 This has nothing to do with race. We're simply discussing whether this event fits the criteria under Wikipedia's policies to warrant its own article. Please don't make this about race. You should edit your comment and properly rationalize why the article should be kept. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu This user is using race as the justification of their vote, and is unwilling to rationalize their argument. Furthermore, this user seems to have little experience with Wikipedia. Therefore, I believe their vote should be struck and discounted. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither me nor anyone else is obligated to have to respond to you. You may want to badger everyone who disagrees with you, but in all fairness, what difference does it really make to you if this article is kept? It is getting mainstream coverage in reliable sources and concerns a well-known and prominent individually running for the highest office in one of the most powerful countries in the world. As far as the black thing goes, well, unquestionably the whole BLM issue in the U.S., whether you think it's claims are legitimate or not, is one of the most covered stories of the year, with protests even taking place outside of the U.S. As such, the currently only well-known black man running for president at the moment during a time of such excessive media attention to black American men seems obviously notable. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much coverage BLM is getting is irrelevant to this article. We don't keep articles just because the subject is black, we keep articles based solely on how notable they are in mainstream media. At the moment this is getting a bit of buzz, but it remains to be seen if it'll be notable outside of Kanye's own page (or if it'll even happen. So no, I'm afraid tying this to the George Floyd protests is a fallacious argument. Please see WP:INHERIT for more details: notability is not inherited. — Czello 07:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is inherited whether anyone likes it or not. You can call a banana an apple all you want, but it's still actually a banana. Wikipedia will not fall apart if this article is kept. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very weak justification for keeping an article. This isn't a newspaper. An article about an event this new and with such little legitimacy should never exist. Wikipedia won't fall apart if we keep the article? Imagine if we had that opinion for every AfD. Wikipedia would become a shitshow and turn into a tabloid newspaper instead of an encyclopedia. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly weak justification for deleting an article concerning a topic covered in mainstream sources. No logical, rationale reason is likely to ever exist for removing this notable content covered in reliable sources. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to your earlier point, notability is not inherited. See the link I posted. And no Wikipedia won't fall apart if it's kept, but it won't fall apart if it's deleted either. Saying we should keep it because it's harmless is a weak, weak argument. Please see WP:N. — Czello 07:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is independently notable due to its coverage in multiple reliable sources. There's way more benefit to keeping an article, this article, concerning an independently notable topic than weakly deleting it, which is something I would expect from ISIS, but not encyclopedists. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SENSATIONAL, overrides GNG. Comparing Wikipedia to ISIS is also quite sensational so don't do that again. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not comparing Wikipedia to ISIS, but only deletionists, i.e. electronic book burners. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be making this into a free speech issue. Keep mind that Wikipedia is not a place for free speech, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. And the logical, rational reason for deleting this article is that it is not encyclopedic. It's simply covering a media event. Should Wikipedia contain an entirely new article for every single major media event? Again, this isn't a newspaper. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak argument. We don't keep articles just because of the times, nor because Kanye is black. We keep articles if we determine them to be notable enough. — Czello 07:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak reply. We keep articles because they are relevant and notable as is the case here. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an event is getting a lot of attention, it does not automatically deserve an article. This "campaign" is still very new, unofficial, and aside from a single tweet, unverifiable. Kanye has his own article where information about his political views and aspirations can go. There shouldn't be an entirely separate article on the premise of literally one tweet. If this isn't WP:NOTNEWS, then I don't know what is. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News is encyclopedic or Wikipedic. No actual reason exists for deleting this article. Hmmm... I see you haven't edited since April, but show up again just to comment in this discussion. Why so much hate against Kanye? And stop striking comments of those you disagree with. Do you not trust the judgment of the admin closing discussions to weigh arguments one way or the other? --24.112.201.120 (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, news is not inherently encyclopedic. And plenty of reasons have been given for deletion -- your argument for keeping seems to be that Kanye is black, which is weak. Also, please assume good faith and stop assuming people have an agenda against some rapper. — Czello 08:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No non-weak reasons have been given for deletion of this inherently encyclopedic article. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-weak" reasons for deleting this article are that they fail the test described in WP:N, specifically point number 2. This article is what Wikipedia is not. Go read WP:NOTNEWS, specifically points 1 and 2. There's no way this media event deserves its own article. It should ideally just merged with Kanye's existing article. And you really wanna talk about my edits? You've made 25 edits throughout Wikipedia in total, 7 of them being in the sandbox. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest no engaging with this user as they are trolling or not willing to listen. — RealFakeKim T 09:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to listen to trolling. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just WP:DENY. Java Hurricane 17:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The C of E and BabbaQ. What we are seeing here is an impressive array of reliable coverage. Buster Reynolds (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait too early to call, as it is a only a recent development. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect It is being covered in reliable sources like CNN and the BBC, but not enough information has come out to make this a worthwhile article. --BSMIsEditing (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to Kanye West until he has made a verifiable bid, for example, he writes in a major publication about the decision, registers with the Federal election commision or otherwise confirms his legitimate intention to stand as a candidate. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West#Politics per Klohinx until verifiable and clear efforts to set up campaign apparatus (e.g. FEC filing, signature-gathering for ballot access, hiring of campaign staffers, official website, etc.), otherwise WP:NOTNEWS. (This is Mélencron – just briefly returning from the dead to !vote here.) Mélencron2 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Kanye West. WP:1E and not being independently notable. If something comes of this - fine. If not it's Cruft. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is going to WIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4980:1630:55E8:51E9:2163:8BDF (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Keep as per notable endorsements. Black Lives Matter, ie Black Candidates (also) Matter, regardless of expletives like "Deez Nuts" --Ne0 (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ne0Freedom, this makes no sense. What does Black Lives Matter have to do with this? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ne0Freedom, I agree. This has nothing to do with the current movement or race in general. Please stop trying to make it about that, and edit your comment to provide a rational defense as to why the article should be kept. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Wallstreet protests evolved into Our Revolution political movement, which devolved back into the current protest situation in the US after Bernie Sanders withdrew from POTUS election nominations. In the meantime the authorities have been trying to suppress these movements, including creating anti-protest regulations, banning over 800 FB groups (Black Lives Matter, Cop Block, etc.), discrediting Bernie Sanders, deploying bayonets against protesters, etc. And Kayne said he would be using "Bernie Sanders' Principles" --Ne0 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond it being technically too late to file for for candidacy, all that we have to go off of is conjecture from a single tweet. In the inconsequential chance that this is not an off-brand publicity maneuver, we can create a proper campaign page. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 15:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are a couple of snippets of interesting content in this, but when you boil it down, this article is mostly fluff, with some inaccuracies. For instance, the lead says he's already entered the race, when there's no evidence of that being remotely true. So, it will make for cool reading on the Kanye West page if this isn't just more of his patented fluff and BS. If he files, I will definitely want this to be its own article. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 00:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misspoke when I stated that I would support this page when the FEC paperwork were filed. He's filed his initial paperwork, yet a ton of sources are saying that he's withdrawing and pulling everyone's leg. At this juncture, I'm fortifying my Merge vote, until further notice. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 18:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Alright, things have progressed and developed to the state that this article can have credence for staying. In the future, I would impart a word of caution about jumping the gun on things of this matter, as this has seemed more like a newspaper or advertisement for the majority of its existence. We'll see if Kanye is just using this to sell some albums or if he's at least semi-serious. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and Redirect to Kanye West#Politics, where everyone can see his 5 years of randomly saying he's running and not running for president. Like many things Kanye West says, this is the media equivalent of Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement; it's Hollywood-style artificial news, like when celebrities officially hate each other or are officially dating on the advice of their publicity teams, except less believable. We don't keep articles about that sort of flatulence; WP:NOTPROMO #4 #5, and even #3, should apply even if it's "positive" gossip generated by the subject. More directly: WP:POLOUTCOMES usually results in mere candidates not even having a biographical article, let alone a separate article for their campaigns; Kanye West happens to be notable for other reasons, but this isn't it. The article itself points out that he's missed the independent candidate deadline in 6 states and the major-party deadlines in all 50. Anyone with Kanye West's resources knows that it's frivolous. Minor party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election has plenty of people who may or may not file for candidacy and don't qualify for campaign articles on Wikipedia. As for any claim of meeting WP:GNG, the counter to that is WP:SENSATIONAL: "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous silly season reporting." --Closeapple (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if his announcement is just a publicly stunt, he might mount a significant campaign in this cycle even at this late stage due to his popularity and social influence. Riadse96 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect West has NOT formed an actual campaign with the FEC. A Tweet is not actually a campaign. Plus, these policies listed aren't even from his 2020 campaign, but rather comments that he has made over time.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are comments made post-2015 when he initially announced his intentions to run and West's political views have received substantial media coverage. He has incorporated these views into his music and fashion brand too. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What I don't think his music or fashion brand really serve as credible sources of evidence that he actually intends to run for president. In Roddy Ricch's "The Box," he states "I'm a 2020 president candidate," but that didn't mean that Ricch actually had any plans to run for president. I agree that until there is an official filing, there shouldn't be a separate article regarding the event. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apoorv Chauhan: West publicly states his opinion on the 13th Amendment. He meets with Trump about it and incorporates it into his music. That's my point. We can know the difference between Roddy's lyrics and West's serious political statements with the use of reliable sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What, again, that's just his political view. Anyone can have a political view without having any intention of actually becoming a politician. Yes, he may have "announced" his candidacy through Twitter, but unless there is an official FEC filing, there's no way it deserves its very own article. It's very possible that the Twitter statement was a publicity stunt, considering that pretty much every single deadline for filing has passed. Unless we have confirmation it's official, we should really be treating this as just a potential campaign, and not an official one. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obvious that the election is still several months away and that there is still easily enough time for his campaign to ramp up and make it. Furthermore, it's currently still a weekend. Obviously most of the relevant state officials don't necessarily work on the weekend. And considering what kind of a legal mess of confusing technicalities the u.s. election system is, it could easily take at least a few (work)days for the lawyers to work out the formalities. If the campaign gets cancelled, sure, it'll make perfect sense to merge it somewhere into a bigger article dedicated to the election, but until then this article is obviously justified as its own page. GMRE (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you except there’s no campaign to cancel, and, as a fan and follower of Kanye’s Twitter shenanigans over the last 5 years, I have a reasonable degree of confidence that this camapaign will never exist. I think the only tweet he’s ever followed through on is “Ima fix Wolves” Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care – Just another publicity stunt to get more free and easy media coverage. In the age of banal and contrived infotainment disguised as actual news coverage that is upon us, mass media goes into a feeding frenzy based upon a casual tweet. It's a great use of sensationalism to enrich his business ventures and music sales. With the pull the subject has on mass media, might as well use it. If West were to actually run for President of the United States in a serious manner, then an article would be warranted. Otherwise, I'm not seeing much of a "campaign" here, other than a campaign to utliize celebrity status to get free media attention and coverage; it's much cheaper than paying for advertising. Merge to Kanye West § Politics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kanye West: Per Rhododendrites, no significant, in-depth coverage yet. Moreover, the campaign itself is not substantial enough to warrant its own page: there has been no FEC filing, there's no campaign manager, etc., etc. A section in Mr. West's Wikipedia biography, on the other hand, as it was when I edited it yesterday, would suffice for now; absent additional coverage (and, of course, more developments regarding his campaign). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Keep: As much as I would like to see an FEC filing and all, the Forbes article has also pushed me to agree with those stating "Keep." — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until further coverage establishes that this campaign is going anywhere significant. Popcornfud (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and Redirect to Kanye West. This feels like WP:SYNTH and/or WP:SPINOFF that just isn't necessary one day after he tweeted something. Waiting until there is confirmation on ballots or FEC filing to make this a separate article makes the most sense. TJScalzo (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign, but only because this hasn't been made official yet. Once this is confirmed and he's filled in the paperwork, I'd be in favour of the article existing. — Czello 17:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait/Merge~~Merge with Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign. I agree with Czello, until it becomes an official filing it shouldn't have its own article. ~~However, give it a week, and see if it becomes official.~~ Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is WP:NOTNEWS territory right now. It can be covered at Kanye's main page for the time being. Should this be a serious endeavor that sees sustained coverage, then we can go about creating this page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete WP:TOOSOON, as BBC noted this is likely just another publicity stunt and deserves a section in West's article but not its own article, unless/until a official filing is made. Just like other potential candidates who never started official campaigns (there are many, check the primary pages). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The longer this goes on the less I'm sure about my opinion here so count me as a no opinion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but keep drafted in case he's serious about running. Otherwise merge the well-written and sourced text on his political positions into West's bio article. JJARichardson (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Keep as his run appears to be legitimate now. JJARichardson (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate this article. Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:7B00:5E7:3CAE:1562:3BB:490 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good reason. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kanye West article for now This may develop into something, it may not. However, a main article reeks of falling foul of WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait and see. Notable for whatever it is, publicity trick or not, only right now, it's not article worthy. Take it to his mainspace article for now. doktorb _words^deeds 21:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Latest publicity stunt by aging white people's favorite rapper. Or just delete, that works too. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or Draftify, or Merge and Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign (or elsewhere on his bio article). The article can be recreated if an actual campaign materializes. For now, it is clearly WP:TOOSOON (see also WP:NOTNEWS) to have a separate page. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing from my previous argument, which I've stricken out above. The WP:GNG criteria is now satisfied.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note it in his BLP. This is not TMZ. soibangla (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) I cannot believe we’re still even talking about this. soibangla (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't a campaign yet, simple as that. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to inflame mediocre trolling. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, leaning towards Keep - I say we keep it, at least for now. While we can speculate that this is a publicity stunt, we should take his words at face value unless it becomes clear that he is not running. I presume that if West intends on filing with the FEC, that his lawyer will assist and that it will take more than a day of time. In addition, his wife as well as Elon Musk quickly endorsed him. West was recently in a photo with Musk at Musk's home. While the caption of the photo isn't political, this photo along with the sudden endorsement could indicate that he told people close to him beforehand and that it wasn't a sudden decision. -Caleb_1223 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/redirect A tweet is not a campaign, far too early. Reywas92^Talk 04:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kanye West SecretName101 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now undecided SecretName101 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kayne West. The information is out there and readily available, but a separate article at this time is WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOSOON. I'm all for a separate article when there's more development, but for now, it should be included in a section of the parent article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kanye West - They are reported by many reliable sources such as CNN, ABC News, TheGuardian and many more hence notable. Can remain in the Kanye West article. KRtau16 ^«Talk» 07:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as West has taken official steps towards running for President as reported here and he has filed his run with the FEC as reported here. KRtau16 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The closer we get to Election Day, the more news there will be about his campaign. Deleting this article will only come in our favor if he decides to drop out. Otherwise, it will make no sense to delete this article only to create it again. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that this page has a lot more discussion than other articles for deletion shows it is a worthy event. Alextheconservative (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy this argument. It being notable on Wikipedia AFD discussions isn't the same as notability in the world itself. — Czello 09:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of long AfD's end in deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Draftify into Kanye West. Wikipedia isn’t news, but I suppose a very likely publicity stunt merits some mention on the main subject’s page. If it becomes a genuine campaign, then keep it. 39.57.187.132 (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kanye West#Politics, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATIONAL, and various other policies cited by similarly-minded voters above, who noticed the media's patterns of jumping on brief tweets on a slow news day. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Procedural Comment - Good luck to the Admin who gets stuck with this one. Allow me to add that the article needs a more accurate title if it survives this process. It is not a "campaign" because that requires formal paperwork with the Federal Election Commission, not to mention building a team of advisors, launching an advertising effort, organizing rallies, etc. At best it is an "announcement" and that or a similar term should be in the article's title... again that is IF it remains as an intact article, which I have already opposed above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Given his name recognition and wealth, he would make an impact on the race at least the size of that Evan McMullin made in 2016 (McMullin launched his bid in early August 2016). A decent review of his political positions, his viability as a candidate, and his overall favorability/unfavorability ratings that merit mention and would make his main article too long (or possibly inclusion in a separate article about his political positions.) It's easier to delete this in 2-3 weeks if no further action is ever taken than resurrect it if by Friday the 17th he's filing active petition drives and has filed FEC paperwork. If he hasn't even filed any FEC paperwork or done anything further by the 17th I'd delete it at that point. For stronger deletionists: I don't see the harm in waiting 48-72 hours to see if there is some there there as he did get endorsements, his wife seems to be taking this more seriously, and this is the first time he's actively talked about running for President during an active Presidential cycle (typically he seems to talk about running 2+ years from the election.) 65.51.198.50 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I'm a strong advocate for using tweets as a legit source (as long they're issued by the subject in question or another RS); the entire foundation of this article is a single tweet, and so far no RS has reported that either Kayne or his -if he has any- team have started to fill any legal paperwork regarding this WP:TOOSOON. -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two tweets, actually. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Kanye West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushtheeditor (talk • contribs)
Delete. West is not a serious candidate. He has already missed several filing deadlines and has done nothing to organize a campaign.Calmecac5 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I think it is definitely a notable topic. --81.135.63.31 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kanye West#Politics: Feels like a publicity stunt, we can recreate this if this is a serious campaign. — csc^-1 20:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A PR stunt and could be recreated if he files legal paperwork 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as long as this is an unofficial, non-FEC filed campaign I don't think it's notable enough for an article. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ~~With no FEC paperwork or actual display of intent beyond a single tweet, this is an article talking at length about something that isn't actually going to happen.~~ KingForPA (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still speedy delete: With various sources reporting that this is already over, it's time to wrap this up. ~~At this point this AfD has just devolved into a single user canvassing because they don't want their pet article deleted.~~ KingForPA (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:PA. Attacking one user is unrelated to discussing the subject's notability. Also, you have made multiple comments through out this AfD process unrelated to any substantial update about the campaign. Instead, your comments appear to be you just pushing your !vote for deletion (possibly bludgeoning?) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC); Edited 14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete All he has done is tweet. Put a section in his biography until he actually runs instead of just announcing he will run.Thanks, (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until Kanye has filed with FEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:E00:44C0:519B:6081:3FAA:D8FA (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge The article is small and can fit in the main article. — RealFakeKim T 09:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be expanded and kept separate, which is the smarter choice. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable enough, sourceful enough, and impactful enough for an independent article. Merge and redirect if not notable enough to stand alone. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
Keep per BabbaQ's reasoning. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Mahuset (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he makes it official with the FEC You're not legally a candidate after a Twitter announcement. It takes a lot more to be official. He needs to make an FEC filing before this article is warranted. The gratuitous and unnecessary statement about him or Owens being "alt-right" is also about as factual or encyclopedic as calling Bill Clinton a Communist. J390 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the section dedicated to his politics in his article.DMT biscuit (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to his own page until he filed the paperwork. It's not an actual campaign yet. Corachow (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kayne West unless West actually runs for President (i.e. files the nomination paperwork). Java Hurricane 01:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is way too early and premature to even have an article of this based only off a couple of tweets from West himself? There hasn't even been a proper campaign for it to warrant this (article) title or the article itself. Also, it doesn't matter if sources claim he is being serious, we should wait until he/officials officially confirms. Also open to actually Draftify until and if his presidential run is confirmed. AshMusique (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – West has doubled down and done an entire piece with Forbes about his run: Kanye West Says He’s Done With Trump—Opens Up About White House Bid, Damaging Biden And Everything In Between. I believe it's just a matter of time before he files his paperwork. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kill me now Keep Held off commenting earlier as wasn't sure if this was a one off publicity stunt that would be gone in a week but Forbes article has tipped me. Seemingly whether it goes anywhere or not the WP:RS coverage is enough to retain the article. *sigh* Glen 13:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as more info about it is available now, per Glen Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have changed my vote to keep. JJARichardson (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until there is actually a campaign. At present there isn't... The Land (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a frequent contributor so I hope I am doing this right. I know his running mate. the fact that she agreed gives me !Personal! opinion that he at least is presenting this as a serious plan. 2605:6000:1521:CABC:C820:1CA9:32AB:10F (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)JustSayin[reply]

I would suggest that you encourage her to speak out to a reliable source so that her comments can be included in the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty clear this is developing into a serious thing. Kingofthedead (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough serious coverage to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above / WP:GNG. Jokullmusic 19:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's nothing but a silly stunt. WQUlrich 20:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. It could just be a promotional stunt. We should at least wait until there’s an FEC filing. That’s a very easy thing to do. One only has to fill out a one-page form. Even perennial and "joke" candidates typically do it. Take a look at the one sent in by Marianne Williamson (I’m not saying she’s a joke, it’s just an example form): [41]. If he hasn’t done this, there’s obviously no organized campaign yet to write an article about.— Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless he files with the FEC. Keep if he ends up filing. The amount of coverage regarding the background and announcement of his run (including the stunt in 2015) seems substantial enough if he becomes an actual candidate.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the vast amount of sources over not only the past days but past years has rendered this article into its own stand-alone article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more notable coverage emerges. This sounds like a rumor being interpreted WP:TOOSOON as a real campaign. Free Media Kid! 05:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this seemed like a publicity stunt upon the first mention, but West has reaffirmed that he is indeed running. --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until we see if this a publicity stunt, an odd unusual way to get Trump re-elected (that one is based on seeing this) or an actual campaign. I’m not accusing him of any of the above, just that we need to wait to see which one it is.--Rockchalk7 17 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG there needs to be significant coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the subject in order to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Whether or not this is a serious campaign, publicity stunt, something to support Trump or something else entirely, it is still true that the campaign meets the GNG criteria. A quick google search shows significant dedicated articles on the subject from all major media outlets which are reliable independent sources on the subject. A discussion on the legitimacy of the campaign and ramifications is content for the article itself and does not influence whether or not it is notable. A merge could be appropriate but doesn't really work as the main article is already >90kb of readable prose and therefore is at a size where it should be considered for splitting rather than merging.Tracland (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Following comments below I would support this being reformatted into a new article titled as Political views of Kanye West until such time as he does actually file (if he ever does file).Tracland (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: West says he's running. It might be a publicity stunt, but even if it is, he claims to be running and merits a page on that basis alone. MetaTracker (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Even if he’s getting a lot of attention, there may not be enough content to write an article about. We have practically no reliable information about the details of his campaign or his platform. The article is currently filled with WP:SYNTH, and removing that wouldn’t leave us with any meaningful amount of content. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep indefinitely as this is a still-developing event. Merge with Kanye West if and only if we can finally conclude that his candidacy was a mere publicity stunt. Also see WP:RAPID. YX1 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Musk has already withdrawn support and Kanye has yet to file for the election. Are we sure we want to claim a crystal ball with this topic? DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 13:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Musk did not withdraw support. He simply tweeted: "We may have more differences of opinion than I anticipated". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Kanye simply tweeted that he would be running for president. Is that enough to create a Wikipedia article? DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarthBotto You're playing loose with the truth here. What Mr. Musk tweeted was an acknowledgment that he doesn't share all the same views as Mr. West, not a clear recension of his endorsement. May I also add that he went out of his way to delete said-tweet as well? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarthBotto The question is whether or not it is 'notable' not whether a tweet is enough for an article. A tweet can potentially be notable, though I am included to agree with you that a tweet on its own in this context is unlikely to be notable. But there is more content than just a tweet. Weight needs also to be placed on the previous political statements that have been made by him and the significant media coverage including the recent Forbes interview. (I'm not saying I agree with the attention this is getting, I think it's ridiculous that is getting any attention, but (ignoring my personal views) it does appear to meet notability requirements).Tracland (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It might be a publicity stunt but it's clearly notable and just because he hasn't formally filed yet doesn't necessarily he may not run. I recall that Donald Trump did not file until a week after his announcement. We can always revisit the issue if the situation changes.FN17 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People will be searching for this, and even if it is a publicity stunt for a new album, it was a a presidential run. As FN17 said, Donald Trump never did the paper work until a week later. Elon also did not withdraw support. Rushtheeditor (talk) 2:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What people will do in the future is pure speculation. It may be talked about enough in the future for WP:GNG to be met, but that’s irrelevant to whether the subject is sufficiently notable now. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 03:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing this to Trump's run and using it as justification is, frankly, ridiculous, seeing as that was in June the year before the election. It's July of the election year, and independent candidates are rapidly running out of time to collect signatures for ballot access. Obviously that's not a problem for a Republican campaign in June 2015. It is a problem for an independent candidate in July 2020. KingForPA (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I would agree that time is clearly not on Kanye's side. However, my understanding is that as of this moment he could still appear on the ballot in enough states to garner over 400 electoral votes. Even if he missed the July deadlines altogether he could still be eligible for over 300. Even if he had been running an independent campaign for the past 2 years I'm doubtful he would win any, much less enough to win, but it's still a mathematical possibility. My intent in bringing up Trump's 2016 campaign wasn't to say that their candidacies are identical. However, I distinctly remember numerous commentators saying that the fact that Trump hadn't filed was a sign that his candidacy wasn't serious and this was a publicity stunt (the article I linked quotes Karl Rove to that end), yet Trump ultimately went on to file a week later. My point being that I don't think we can take his lack of official paperwork, at this point, as a sign that his candidacy is not serious.FN17 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If he decides against running, I would suggest renaming and reformatting into a Political views of Kanye West article. JJARichardson (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd support this proposalTracland (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This could be a publicity stunt but it received enough attention and is notable enough for an article, as many before me have said. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because the press will be all over Kanye West for 4 months over Kanye's political rantings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:E95F:A093:461B:C142 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — 2601:640:C600:3C20:E95F:A093:461B:C142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What may or may not happen in the future is irrelevant to present notability. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given his stature as a national figure, this is obviously going to generate more than enough news coverage to fill up the article. More than enough to fulfil GNG. Patiodweller (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patiodweller: Sure, but I think you’re missing the point. GNG has to be satisfied now for the article to exist. The likelihood of GNG being met in the future is an entirely subjective prediction (see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL), and is irrelevant to whether the article should exist now. This is what WP:TOOSOON is about. The subject is not sufficiently notable now. If it becomes more notable in the future, we can create the article then. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not "sufficiently notable now"? You have a piece by Forbes, reactions from Trump three times now, Elon Musk's comments alone have received coverage, a poll has been conducted, West has continued his campaign with more tweets, etc... Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the answer to your question would be that most, if not all, of the sources you've mentioned have been about people wondering if West is just pulling everyone's leg, as he hasn't done anything besides tweeting. This seems like a crystal ball article that could be merged with Kanye West. If he files his campaign or begins actually campaigning, I'd be happy to vote for this to be its own independent article - it'd certainly be an interesting one! DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to wide media coverage on his campaign. --108.205.159.35 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — 108.205.159.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Redirect to Kanye West and/or Draftify~~: Kanye hasn't filed with the FEC, so there isn't a real "campaign" until he does so. There appear to be some keep arguments that this will be newsorthy. To that, I say WP:TOOSOON. If a Political positions of Kanye West article needs to be split from Kanye's article, I will support it as long as there is good reason. Username⁶⁸⁹² 04:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Changing vote to Weak keep but move and rescope unless he files with the FEC:~~ After looking at the Kanye West article, it appears that that article is too long already so I think that merging this may not be the best idea at this point. Unless he files with the FEC, I believe that the best option would be to rescope to focus more on his political positions and move to Politics of Kanye West, though I will note that the political positions do take up a large chunk of this article. Username⁶⁸⁹² 01:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove my vote.~~ See below. Discussions on splitting the Kanye West article can happen after this AfD. Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standard for a candidate/campaign to be notable as set by the Theresa Greenfield AfD and later deletion reviews is clearly not met by this, either. I already cast my own vote on this, but this is something that should be considered here that a lot of contributors aren't aware of. KingForPA (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that if the standard set there was overturned, I would support keeping this page. It's not that I personally feel this article should be deleted, but I feel that it doesn't meet the standards set. KingForPA (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A merge to Kanye West#Politics would be way too large for that article, and draftifying would only spread the Kanye campaign-related information across several articles instead of keeping it all in one place. While I personally am skeptical to whether or not Kanye is actually serious (especially since he has done this before!), the topic is undoubtedly receiving tons of news coverage and is thus notable. lovkal (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Until we know that he has actualy registered with the FEC, perhaps the article should be renamed? Kanye West 2020 presidential aspirations, or something. lovkal (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no clear resolution, but appears to be more of a trend towards keeping, including some previous "delete" votes being changed to "keep". Additional time is needed to see how this trend develops, or of it is anomalous.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "campaign" may not be serious, may go nowhere, and may be nothing more than a publicity stunt. But, based on the amount of significant coverage in reliable sources, it is a highly notable publicity stunt, and so the article should stay. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: If Kanye's campaign isn't serious, it should probably be moved. I think that if this is kept before Kanye files with the FEC, I think this should be moved to Presidential aspirations of Kanye West or Politics of Kanye West (obviously both of these moves would require scope change and rewrite, though I think that it shouldn't be like this if the campaign hasn't filed with the FEC). Username⁶⁸⁹² 03:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can cross that bridge when we get to it, Username6892. The question before us now is whether the article should be kept, rather than whether it should be renamed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to more appropriate article title until he actually files with the FCC. Otherwise the article is miss-leading, but that aside it's probably notable enough to be kept at this point. It's just conjecture on my part, but I feel like him picking a running mate shows he's at least serious enough about it right now for there to be some sustained coverage for the near future. It's not like he can't keep running a faux campaign even if misses the filing deadlines either and then be like "come on guys, I got all these votes" or blame it on the "system" when he drops out five months from or something. Either way, this will be getting coverage for awhile. Just change the name of the article until it's legally official so Wikipedia isn't taking a position or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye_West#Politics. The bulk of this article is background and synthesis of positions and comments taken before West ever 'announced his candidacy'. It is the job of daily news organizations to churn out new content every day, not an encyclopedia. We should summarize events in the news, a step above the scrum, not race to incorporate every breaking click-bait headline. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The political positions are all after he announced his intent to run back in September 2015. Most of the views are also adapted from the Forbes piece specifically about his 2020 campaign run. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West#Politics - there is simply no substance to this story beyond a single tweet. The campaign as such does not exist, he has filed no paper-work. FOARP (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The presence of poll data, for example, indicates that the is significant coverage in reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Meets WP:GNG- significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~The "campaign" may not serious, but that does not affect notability.~~ Danre98^{(talk|contribs)} 15:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep.~~ Given how widespread coverage is, WP:GNG has definitely been met. However, WP:NOT arguments are a thing, which I did not previously take into account. This article passes WP:NOT because of the Oklahoma ballot thing and the FEC filing. Otherwise, it would be "Kayne West Presidential Aspirations 2020", which violates WP:SENSATIONAL and probably WP:NOTNEWS (unless there are compelling reasons otherwise). I don't find the Oklahoma ballot thing and the FEC filing to be the greatest reasons, so I changed my !vote to Weak Keep. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, but the South Carolina campaign event, the 'push' to get onto the ballot in South Carolina, and the "website" have convinced me. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 10:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West#Politics. Nika2020 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fully meets the WP:GNG requirements. In the event this turns out to be a flash-in-the-pan publicity stunt by the gregarious Mr. West rather than a serious campaign, then there would be no problem revisiting the subject for another consideration of its encyclopedic value. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A second poll has been conducted and Musk has clarified his support once again. Though this may be an unorthodox campaign without FEC papers, it meets WP:GNG requirements without a doubt. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not having any paperwork at all doesn't make your campaign "unorthodox", it makes you not a candidate with no ballot access, write-in or otherwise. KingForPA (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's the July release date for his new album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil6875 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether it's serious or not, it's obviously notable given the massive media coverage. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- seems like the campaign has now been cancelled before it ever began.[42] Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the comments come from one individual on July 9th, while others such as Musk have made comments since. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West has not denied his "campaign" is over or otherwise commented on the matter. If this still mattered to him, he'd have said something about it by now. It's very clear that this was just a passing thought he had which he likely won't revisit. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 16:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You spoke too soon. West just began filing his FEC paperwork. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign, West is 'running' entirely for publicity, and it doesn't reasonably meet WP:10 year test. It does appear to meet WP:GNG just not WP:10 year test -- at least in my mind. That's why a redirect is warranted. West's hasn't even formally filed, he's missed a number of state deadlines, and he appears to be winding down the hype now. West's comment about reconsidering for 2024 is telling. It's just publicity, and we shouldn't fall into WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper or in this instance a tabloid. Philotimo (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, it's important to review WP:What Wikipedia is not as noted in my first response, but he's surprised me and remained in the race, gotten on the ballot in Oklahoma, and is planning to hold a rally in South Carolina. I still believe his run is entirely about publicity, but he's making this a big story. I've noted it's WP:GNG in my last post but not WP:10 year test, however, considering he's still in it and is continuing to generate publicity, I'm beginning to think it might actually meet WP:10 year test. I'm definitely open to reconsidering my vote if he does end it soon, but for now it's a weak keep for me. This will likely close as WP:What "no consensus" means though, which is probably the best outcome for this very split case. Philotimo (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD has outlived the "campaign" itself [43]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I honestly laughed when I saw this. It's sad but true. Philotimo (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I'd like for it to be deleted, the coverage and polling the "campaign" has received is significant, and there is too much well sourced information in this to be reasonably merged into the main Kanye article. Jonas1015119 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many outlets are now reporting that Kanye has "dropped out". Many of the editors arguing to keep the article did so on the (flawed) grounds that this would develop into something more noteworthy over time. It clearly hasn't. Even if we were to write an article about a stunt, there is just not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to document it. We don't even have sources telling us whether this is a stunt or not. West has not commented on the recent reports, which I think is telling of his passing interest in the matter. If editors still want this kept, they should make new arguments for why they think it is notable. What are we to write an article about? A stunt or a campaign? There isn't enough coverage to write a solid article about either of those. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 16:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that this discussion needs to be revisited in light of these new developments. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nice4What: As you've been spearheading the article, what's your stance now that he's abandoned the campaign after a week and never filed? DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the fact that he was campaigning for two days made this a campaign, paperwork or not. It is notable. However, TMZ is now reported that Kanye has in fact filed his FEC paperwork. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign. It appears that West has abandoned his campaign plans before ever qualifying for a ballot anywhere. This campaign was a memorable activity but it was so short-lived that it doesn't warrant a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm withdrawing my recommendation as West has reportedly qualified for one state ballot and has not confirmed his withdrawal from the race. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD has been running for longer than Kanye was "running" for president. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here we have a case study in WP:DELAY and WP:NOTNEWS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign. A mention on Kanye's page make sense for a campaign that never happened and was never truly real. A whole article does not. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kanye has filed his FEC paperwork via TMZ. More reliable sources may be reporting on this soon enough. I know that many !votes depended on whether paperwork would be filed or not. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the paperwork for those that don't trust TMZ. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I just said below, I don't get why people are caring about filing FEC paperwork. Perennial candidates who aren't notable file with the FEC. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, too. Absence of FEC paperwork indicated that this was not notable, but its presence alone does not automatically indicate that it is. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nice4What: This is another WP:CRYSTALBALL argument: "More reliable sources may be reporting on this soon enough." That is a prediction, and is completely irrelevant to notability now. Please explain why you think it is sufficiently notable now. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a CRYSTAL argument, it's just that TMZ breaks celebrity news first and I even linked to the paperwork, so don't try to use that to downplay my comment. How does this campaign not meet WP:GNG? Polling, actual on-ground campaigning, staff has been hired, polling data conducted, reactions from notable individuals Trump and Musk, cover by many reliable sources including Forbes already, etc... Is this all based on personal opinions against West at this point? I didn't think that paperwork mattered at any point, but it's what many people's !votes depended on. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN of showing verifiablity and notability rests with those adding content. You have to show that it is notable. We're obviously not going to find reliable secondary sources that say that it isn't notable. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't baselessly accuse others of editing in bad faith: "Is this all based on personal opinions against West at this point?" We're making reasonable arguments that have nothing to do with personal feelings about Kanye. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear that this article has significant coverage and uses reliable/secondary/independent sources. "Presumed" coverage can be argued, based on the fact that the campaign's every development has been reported on since July 4th. I know of WP:BURDEN, but it's quite explicit that this subject passes WP:GNG. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that there are numerous polls, campaign staff, active campaigning, etc., but you haven't actually provided reliable secondary sources. What is this based on beyond the Forbes article? TMZ is not a reliable source. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no, presumed coverage cannot be used to establish notability. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poll (used by FiveThirtyEight), Campaign Staff / Active Campaigning. Again, I suggest you go through the references. Okay, keep invoking CRYSTAL but I'll be sure to link the multiple sources reporting this by the end of the day. Already picked up by Uproxx and NME. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will invoke CRYSTAL whenever you claim that presumed future coverage establishes notability. I have seen this poll, and one poll does not a notable campaign make. Other campaigns with their own articles have been the subject of numerous polls. Furthermore, all three articles you linked to just now indicate that it's unclear if he's even been running, and that there have been reports of him "dropping out." Regardless, UPROXX, NME, and New York Magazine are not reliable sources. They are tabloids that routinely report on just about anything celebrities like Kanye do. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I claimed that once, but you keep repeating it. You are wrong about New York Magazine, it is listed as generally reliable under WP:RSP. And so what if it is unclear if he dropped out or not...? The main concern here is whether FEC papers were filed. I feel that there is no point in continuing this conversation, as you keep circling back to earlier points. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern here is not whether FEC papers were filed, it's whether this "campaign" meets WP:GNG. And the context in which we use sources matters. If this is a political campaign, why are mainstream news sources not reporting on his campaigning, positions, polling, etc.? We can't base an article about an entertainer's campaign aspirations on entertainment media. They'd be covering him even it he wasn't running. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting on his polling: The Fader, The Hill. Reporting on his policies: CNN, Pitchfork, Al Jazeera. Campaigning: Intelligencer. Read the article, read the references, or do a quick search. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is very heavy on entertainment news websites. I've read the article and I've looked at the references. Everything on this is coming from an entertainment perspective. Even the CNN article is under "CNN Entertainment." The Hill is probably the only reliable secondary source to pull from this, and it just covers the singular poll you linked to before. Every source you've provided above primarily cites the Forbes piece, so these are closer to being tertiary sources than secondary ones. So far, we've got two things supporting the argument in favor of keeping the article: the Forbes piece, and the poll. Those are not enough to establish notability. I will easily be convinced that it is notable if you provide a healthy number of secondary sources that are reliable for politics, not entertainment. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, look at what is cited at Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign. We've got Politico, The New York Times, CNN, Vox, The Guardian, FOX News, CNBC, etc. Perhaps most importantly, these sources did their own reporting on the Buttigieg campaign. All the sources provided for Kanye derive their information almost entirely from the Forbes piece. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An entertainment stance is not voided by WP:GNG. West is primarily known as a musician/celebrity, of course that would make sense. I believe you have your own unique opinion of what meets the notability criteria, but The Washington Post and The New York Times/Reuters reported on the campaign under their 'politics' subsection. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd, Mélencron2, Pennsylvania2, TJScalzo, Shivertimbers433, KingForPA, 2600:8800:E00:44C0:519B:6081:3FAA:D8FA, J390, Molandfreak, and Lovkal: Pinging users that mentioned FEC paperwork in their !votes. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What, please avoid bludgeoning this AfD and let the process play out without constant the replies and updates. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 19:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: People said it was one tweet, that changed. People said paperwork is needed, that changed. Somebody else added an update when the campaign was supposedly cancelled. These updates are crucial to the AfD process. There are other users replying plenty throughout the AfD, I suggest you ping them as well. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What, you're doing an awful lot of canvassing here. I'd suggest you give your next moves some thought before continuing about your merry way. And no, I'm definitely not changing my vote either, in light of the news that he's already hired and fired his entire staff. KingForPA (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KingForPA: Don't make a personal attack falsely accusing me of canvassing; I suggest that you strike your comments. If you read the article, you'd know the chronology that Kanye supposedly fired his staff on July 9th but has since filed paperwork on July 15th. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that you're canvassing is a personal attack, but you insulting editors' reading comprehension isn't. I think that sums it up much better than I can, really! KingForPA (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a still a personal attack despite what I said, you know? Also, I'm saying that the news that he's already hired and fired his entire staff took place a week ago and there has been campaign developments since then. I'm not criticizing your reading comprehension, but maybe you were not aware of when these events took place based on your comment. And instead of striking your comments in good faith, you continue with your remarks? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had already seen the information you mentioned when you pinged me and nine other users - and, most interestingly, not the users who changed their votes to keep based on the Forbes piece. I will not be striking out anything. Thanks! KingForPA (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Forbes article and the FEC filing are unrelated (wow). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, FEC papaers have since been filed. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand people saying !keep or !delete based on whether FEC paperwork is filed or not. Filing FEC paperwork isn't a notability criteria. It's all about meeting WP:GNG while considering WP:NOT. Lots of candidates file FEC paperwork who aren't notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the people who argued based on that, and I'd like to clarify that I meant only that the lack of a filing indicated that it wasn't notable, not that the presence of one would indicate that it was. I said that filing is very easy, so the fact that he didn't file was telling. That doesn't mean, though, that filings alone make a campaign serious and/or notable. Like you've pointed out, many perennial and joke candidates file. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I did say the campaign was notable enough if he did file, but that was definitely a mistake. As a developing story, I wanted to see if the campaign was active in doing at least the bare minimum to be legitimate. After all, Vermin Supreme 2020 presidential campaign exists without high-profile publications writing about it. Most of the coverage surrounding West's campaign was specifically asking the question of whether or not this is/was serious. As a <10 day stunt with little effort to actually get on ballots, I would lean towards merging some of the information into the main article.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The WP and NYT articles, for example, are all about questioning whether this is an actual campaign or not. Like I've said before, this could be an article about a promotional stunt, but we need sources saying that's the case. Right now, nobody knows what's going on (and all coverage revolves around the Forbes piece), so we can't really make an article solidly about either a joke campaign like Supreme's or a serious campaign. We can't have it both ways. @Nice4What: An entertainment basis does not void WP:GNG, but this is not currently written from an entertainment perspective, nor do you appear to be arguing for that. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filing with the FEC doesn't prove that a campaign is notable, but not filing with the FEC is almost always a sign that the campaign is not notable. (Rare exception: Ralph Nader 1996 presidential campaign, where the candidate purposely avoided raising or spending $5,000 which would have required him to file with the FEC.) Similarly, being listed in the Internet Movie Database doesn't prove that a film is notable, but not being listed in the IMDb is a good sign that the film is not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This was funny, but it doesn't deserve a full page. It's a joke and was never a legitamate or serious campaign. It should just be a section of a more relavant significant page noq. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Mr. West withdrew his candidacy, I think we can bring this debate to a much-needed conclusion. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, he dropped out. Some folks put more effort into this article than he did into his "campaign". WQUlrich 07:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update – The Oklahoma State Election Board has announced via Twitter: "Independent presidential candidate Kanye West has qualified for the General Election ballot in Oklahoma." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which would give him access to just seven electoral votes. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which would show that he is actively and successfully campaigning. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. It would show he filed at some point. I think the most telling thing is that Kanye has not commented on all these reports of him dropping out. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make any assumptions based on Kanye's silence. To qualify in Oklahoma, ~~you need 5,000 signature and need to spend $5,000 on a filing fee. That means that work had to be done in the state to have ballot access.~~ Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he only submitted his paperwork today and didn't have to collect a single signature: [44] — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 00:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He had to pay $35,000 then, which isn't much considering his fortune but may still indicate a worthwhile campaign. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357, personally I'm finding your commentary on almost everyone who disagrees with you somewhat tiring. Your name is splashed all over this AFD. How about just letting the process play out? Glen 18:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my apologizes. I've now said everything I wanted to, and I ended up changing my !vote anyway in light of recent developments. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 05:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I originally thought this was a joke that would never go anywhere, but West is now on the ballot in Oklahoma and his campaign has been covered constantly for a reasonably long period of time. His campaign no longer has WP:NOTNEWS problems in my opinion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Obviously passes WP:GNG, irrespective of whether it's serious, and whether it's proceeding or folding. The Kanye campaign article as it stands now is already much-better developed than the Trump campaign article two weeks after he announced his candidacy.[45] Trump's campaign was also considered a joke or a publicity stunt back then, and Kanye said in his 2018 song "Ye vs. the People": "ever since Trump won, it proved that I could be President."[46] Now please @all go fight to delete the irrelevant, un-serious, already-folded, and insignificantly-covered Vermin Supreme 2020 presidential campaign. — JFG ^talk 22:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: @Nice4What: This was WP:TOOSOON at first, but coverage of his appearance on the Oklahoma ballot has been wide enough that I think WP:GNG is now satisfied. I say "weak" because it's still unclear where Kanye himself stands on the campaign as of right now, with most reports still declaring that they're unsure if he was ever seriously running due to his silence. That poses issues for clarity in the article, but those issues aren't insurmountable and are likely to be temporary. Seeing the following articles (especially the AP coverage) led me to change my mind: [47], [48], [49], [50]. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he has filed FEC paperwork and furthermore is an extremely notable individual. Stavd3 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting closure: Consensus would appear to have been reached, in favor of Keep. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 16:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a PR stunt, and not worth more than a sentence or a paragraph on his page mentioning this laughable event. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I was pro-deletion a week ago, the amount of media coverage, proper FEC forms, and apparent paid campaign operatives have made it clear to me at least that this page should be kept. U-dble (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kanye and/or his team has filed legal documents with the FEC, which should be enough to sustain notability. RodeoWrld (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People want to search for this, and we should keep it even if it was a puplicity stunt. User:Hockeyisthebest123 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also would've been pro-deletion about a week ago but at this stage it seems clear that he is going to participate as he and his team have already filed in the forms in several states, they have potential candidates and even though he missed some deadlines he has a lot of clout and he can definitely influence the election notably ― it should not matter that the reason for the campaign is publicity or whatever. TaylorSnail (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kayne West. It's a single event. Nfitz (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Kayne"? I think it's "Kanye". – numbermaniac 02:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has got massive mainstream coverage. He has registered in Oklahoma now so it is official. Add to that polling 8% in some polls. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He just finished an official campaign rally with numerous attendees...many people who had done far less in their campaigns have articles up for said campaigns nonetheless. Tom Danson (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First campaign rally. A page is better than none. Sgt. bender (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Changing my decision, it appeared that this campaign was a complete joke about 2 weeks ago, but now it seems to have solidified a bit more - at least worthy enough to keep an article. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WesSirius (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the recent news that he has seemingly now qualified to be on the ballot for at least one state. Seems this is really happening. Steel1943 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG a hundred times over. Just held first "campaign event" and is achieving ballot access. We have plenty of articles about pretextual presidential campaigns without a goal other than winning, which are many. That is no reason to delete. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not a keep when first announced for sure, but definitely one now. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since he now has an FCC filing. RBolton123 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the news that he has actually held a rally for his campaign. Even if he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, he seems to be taking this seriously. – numbermaniac 02:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kanye is very serious about this as he filed for ballot in Oklahoma. Also he recently held a rally for it. SMB99thx Email! 02:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Decision_Tree_for_Optimization_Software-1] Mittelmann, Hans D. "Decision Tree for Optimization Software". Retrieved 2020-07-03.

[2] "Homepage of Prof. Dr. Hans D. Mittelmann". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

[3] "Arizona State University expertise finder database". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

[4] Mittelmann, Hans D. (2020). "Benchmarking Optimization Software - a (Hi)Story". SN Oper. Res. Forum. Vol. 1.

[5] "Prof. S. Le Digabel's Derivative-Free Optimization (DFO) Course Website". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

[6] Xi, Min; Sun, Wenyu; Chen, Yannan; Sun, Hailin (2020). "A derivative-free algorithm for spherically constrained optimization". Journal of Global Optimization. 76: 841–861. Retrieved 2020-07-03.

[7] "PyPI Download Statistics by PePy". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

[8] "PDFO Download Count". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

[9] "More Descent, Less Gradient". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

[10] "专访: 宝藏数学家的优化人生 --- 知乎专栏「运筹OR帷幄」大数据时代的运筹学". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

[11] "知乎专栏「运筹OR帷幄」大数据时代的运筹学". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

[12] "运筹OR帷幄机器之心". Retrieved 2020-07-04.

[Niazi-13] Niazi, S (1976). "Volume of distribution as a function of time". Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 65: 452–454. doi:10.1002/jps.2600650339. PMID 1263103.

[14] Kim, DK; Lee, JC; Lee, H; Joo, KW; Oh, KH; Kim, YS; Yoon, HJ; Kim, HC (2016). "Calculation of the clearance requirements for the development of a hemodialysis-based wearable artificial kidney". Hemodialysis International. 20: 226–234. doi:10.1111/hdi.12343. PMID 26245302.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]