Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 July	9 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. Unnecessary third relist. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Medical Students' Association[edit]

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

Not notable student organization. No in-depth coverage. Renata (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other IFMSA national member organisations have even less detailed pages with less references. I believe that every organisation that is a member of such global and notable organisations should have articles about them. Dziugreb (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be plenty of references. Rathfelder (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these are independent in-depth sources required to pass WP:NCORP. Renata (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- puddleglum^2.0 23:59, 8 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. Tone 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ummarapas Vathanakul[edit]

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

Two long RfCs in the past have both closed with total refusal to grand any beauty queen win the status of being a default sign of notability. All beauty queens need to show notability through GNG. One source can never be enough for GNG, and my search for additional sources showed up nothing that would add to notability. The last discussion appears to not have been properly posted and had no participantion, no one actually even argued for keep. There is no sign of notability at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:NACTOR. Dan arndt (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject does receive a considerable amount of coverage in celebrity news.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Not really high-quality or in-depth, but it does demonstrate the possibility that some of the coverage might establish notability per the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD was included in the wrong daily log, relisting to ensure it gets the full 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - never actually won a major title; acting career is not substantial. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 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. Tone 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rønnes[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Whilst WP:BEFORE shows evidence that he has released recordings, there are no reliable independent sources that would demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. AfD result in 2010 was Keep but with no evidence of secondary sources located since then. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has zero sources that are indepdent, reliable secondary sources. Listings in a set of holdings of works by a person do not prove notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG. – DarkGlow (talk)}
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are fairly broad claims, but little evidence to back them up. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pentz, California[edit]

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

THis one is a bit borderline, and perhaps others may be able to get a better picture of it than I. At any rate, there's nothing much there now, nor on topos going back into the 1950s. Searching produces a lot of hits on a soil type, and others that are clearly about the place; but a lot of those refer to it as the Pentz Ranch. I also have to say that Durham's story of the origin of the name isn't terribly plausible, and the Butte County histories are full of people named Pentz. This is right in the middle of the ongoing issue with these GNIS-based articles: I really don't see how we can justify having an article on a place that we cannot describe well, nor clearly characterize. Mangoe (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are various references, especially in geology books, but I can't see anything which unambiguously says this is a populated place. It's clear from satellite imagery that all that's there now is a few of what look like farm buildings. Hut 8.5 18:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It was a 400-acre ranch owned by a man named Manoah Pence. For a brief time he ran a post office spelled Pentz. I don't see any indication that it was ever a community or settlement. Glendoremus (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not a populated place, no sign of notability.Alex-h (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non Devokewater (talk) 20:38, 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. Tone 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taku bullion coin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poor references. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom on failing the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non Devokewater (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am Coinfused. Are coins automatically notable, or do they need to satisfy WP:SIGCOV? Bearian (talk) 03:26, 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. Tone 14:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Montanari[edit]

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

Per it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Stefano Montanari and it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Stefano Montanari/2 and long deletion history at it:Stefano Montanari Frietjes (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The writing here is down right atrocious. It is broken English, and there is no sign that he is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, even if there's a notability case buried somewhere within it (a prospect that I doubt). This reads like an antivax screed that was machine-translated from Italian to English and then back again several times. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might very well be a non-notable individual (I’m not checking those foreign sources to find out), and it might very well be irreparable and a case for TNT (I’m not checking because the subject doesn’t interest me)...but the reasons given by the nom are completely irrelevant. A deletion history on Italian Wikipedia has absolutely no impact here. Just saying. – ².O.^Boxing 20:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreadable mass of bad translation. The Italian discussion is actually useful, despite not being based on the English-Wikipedia policies: they concur that as a losing politician for a party so minor that they would not be expected to win even one seat, he is not notable as a politician, with a few of them disagreeing on the basis of his scientific publications. But here, publications alone are not enough; one needs evidence of impact of the publications, and that is lacking. So he fails both WP:NPOL and WP:PROF. On top of which, WP:TNT applies. I have to assume that whoever left a "stub, please expand" tag at the top of the article did so as a joke; the last thing it needs is more expansion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am try to put his biography and try to talk with Montanari or Robert Kennedy Jr. to leave a possible strong source or decent english page. Has the italian wikipedia page has being remuove several times since 2011 for vandalism and are controled by some italian politics (like Conte's Task Force) and others authority that don't wanna make visible on Stefano Montanari. As I metionad is a personal friend of Robert Kenndy Jr. Please give time to find decents source and help me improved this page. Montanari is always been censored by italian mainstream for his personal electron microscope used for reaserch in any medical fields, include vaccines. In this moments is call by all country to explain the coronavirus and medical advised on pulmanary thrombosis (Disseminated intravascular coagulation) with the best virologist (Giulio Tarro / Luc Montagnier) and medical expertise on the subjects. For now is stub page from an old one italian not much known how to use the correct Templares, sorry my bad. Please protect from vandalism or make it edit by a good administrator. as Me are very bad in english page, I did it Planck Units derivates. I am sorry for not much competent in wikipedia pages, but trully people should know who is Stefano Montanari as Trump himself ask advised by Robert Kennedy. Montanari is very hated by Beppe Grillo's onlus Bortolani for stolen his microscope beacause Montanari was put his nose into vaccines 16 years ago. Then he been always cesored or make him his phones or web under control, they try many time to block him his speak or knowledge, or his own research on cancers or SIDS (Sudden infant death syndrome, cause it by vaccine as say many times Montanari)or Thrombosis by nano-micro heave meatal or not metal in blood by almost evething. check Children Healty Defence website.--MarianGheorgheWiki (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:OR, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SOAP. Much of the article literally is multiplicative, and there is a wall of links that are meaningless and would take considerable time to sort out. It seems to be a soapbox for one guy's theories of medicine. We do not publish original research. I don't care if he's BFF with a Kennedy. Bearian (talk) 03:30, 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. Tone 14:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Shea Hunt[edit]

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

This career officer existed. His promotions are sourced to gazettes, as can be done for any other career officer. His peak rank was Brevet Major and he was promoted Lt. Col on retirement. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER or GNG. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does the inclusion of his position as a justice of the peace for Hampshire add anything to his notability for this decision? Vexed Cassidy (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a rather non-notable soldier. Coverage of the name that I found is in a genealogical publication, national archives entry (for his house), and various listings of promotions, not enough to pass GNG. I'm not aware of anything that makes justices of the peace otherwise notable. Our article Magistrate#United Kingdom suggests there are 28,000 magistrates in the UK (though it's unsourced), so I'm inclined to think that isn't enough alone to establish notability. Our Justice of the peace#United Kingdom says that English JPs "decide on offences which carry up to six months in prison, to a maximum of one year of imprisonment" and says "No formal qualifications are required", and Magistrate (England and Wales) calls them "people from the local community who are not required to hold any legal qualifications", and that they handle "less serious criminal cases" suggesting the position isn't particularly notable. While of course Wikipedia isn't itself a reliable source, I get the clear impression JP isn't notable on it's own. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the article subject isn't notable enough, if the image tied to the article File:Lieutenant Colonel Charles Shea Hunt, JP.jpg could be deleted simultaneously by an admin, I'd appreciate it. Vexed Cassidy (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we keep this article with a stub-tag (and assigned it to a certain Wikiproject) and let others add content to it for a period of 6 months? If nothing substantial is added, then we can again nominate it for an AfD. Just a thought. -Hatchens (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subaltern, hence does not meet WP:SOLDIER. No evidence of having done anything notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A lieutenant-colonel is hardly a subaltern! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not reaching encyclopedic notability. --Lockley (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:MILL - his highest earned commission was that of Captain, and his highest civil office was justice of the peace. If he had done anything else, or had been ennobled, that would be different. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 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) 22:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angustha purusha[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay that makes no claim to notability, it is very difficult to understand what the article is even about and it is written like a high school paper, almost certainly the entire article is original research, and needless to say it fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not verifiable. It's not nonsense, I don't think it's OR, but reliable 3rd-party sources regarding the little man the size of a thumb who lives in your heart are going to be hard to locate. --Lockley (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom this is gibberish Devokewater (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator - my eyes hurt after reading that little article JW 1961 Talk 21:18, 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. Tone 14:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Dean[edit]

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

A non notable presenter. WP:BEFORE shows some external links but no reliable sources or independent coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per WP:NOTRESUME. The inclusion of personal tidbits such as whistling and hobbies indicate this is not a serious encyclopedia article. In 2007, we could have excused this fluff, but in 2020, everybody knows we are not a free resume service. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Verga[edit]

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

A non notable model. WP:BEFORE shows zero reliable sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and no reliable sources. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 00:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being named Brazilian model of the year in 2005 is notable. Notability is not temporary. Brazil has over 200 million people, the 5th-largest population in the world. Rafael Verga also finished #2 in the "Most Beautiful Man" contest in 2005, finishing behind Chris Evans...yes, the actor. Clearly, he was big a decade ago. He retired in 2014. A lot of references have been removed over the past 15 years. Removing references does not make someone 'not notable'.Ryoung122 10:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ryoung122 There are lots of “most beautiful people” listicles but these do not necessarily indicate notability. The article also doesn’t say who has chosen the subject arbitrarily as “most beautiful man”. Which of the sources that have been removed do you think best show notability under WP:BLP? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. I couldn't find anything in Portuguese and the claim that sources were removed should be proven. I was looking at the history of the article and couldn't find any reliable sources. Bolhones (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague allegations of winning accolades does not make a person notable without significant coverage in reliable sources. There's been literally zero newspaper articles about this model. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 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 keep. Article rescued, consensus is GNG met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Mortil[edit]

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

A non notable actor. WP:BEFORE shows no substantial coverage or reliable sources to help source article. Currently only sourced by IMDb. Whilst the opening paragraph credits her in Titanic, it’s not the James Cameron film. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I could be convinced otherwise if there is some improvement in terms of WP:RS, but a search of her name in quotations on google news comes up with only one article, in Spanish. While her article itself makes her look notable, it doesn't have any sources at all, and seems to rely exclusively on IMDB. She doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has probably been WP:HEYed by Nfitz. I haven't got around to getting access to ProQuest, but am confident others have and have reviewed the new references. With those references, this article is probably a Keep. Thanks Nfitz for your work on the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia was not supposed to be an IMDb mirror, unfortunately it has been turned into such, we need to reverse this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnpacklambert, you literally only looked at this article for one minute after your delete vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank-Joachim Grossmann - how is that time to judge the dozens of easily found references in a quick search, let alone write your delete comment? We need to reverse editors simply casting delete votes without actually doing any WP:BEFORE. How is an actor with years of experience in many national network series and a Gemini Award nominee not likely notable? I question the competence of your participation here. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, well said, and I object to this vote as well. Many of us question how JPL rolls: the hit and run votes not aligned with policy, the absence of research, and the failure to comprehending the article's subject or meaning are problematic. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not cite any sources, no reliable sources appear within the first 10 pages of a google search, only 1 hit in my university library databse (a one sentence reference to Mortil in a play in Toronto). Nothing to indicate any reliable sources exist, so unlikely that the article will ever meet WP:GNG. The credits attributed to her via IMDb/the Wikipedia page in question make no argument for her meeting WP:NACTOR criteria 2 especially given that her claim to fame is an appearance in the Titanic tv miniseries. Samsmachado (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added nine references to the article, include a substantial in-depth piece from the 1979 Vancouver Sun. Also, how is a Gemini Award nominee not notable. User:Samsmachado, what database were you looking at ... there's many references in ProQuest ... though nothing in almost two decades. Also ping Darryl Kerrigan. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, and for adding those references. That said, I am not really sure what to make of them. As they are available only on a private newspaper archive, I can't read them. The in-depth in the Vancouver Sun is from when she would have been 12. How helpful can that be? The most recent article is almost two decades old for an actress who is supposedly still active. None of the headlines have her name in them, and many seem to also be about others, so I question whether this is substantial and sustained coverage (but as I said, I can't read them). Concerning the Gemini Award nomination, I am not sure everyone who has been nominated for a Gemini is notable. It is an award for Canadian television, which she didn't win anyway. Being nominated, might not suggest notability in Canada, never mind more generally. I am still not sure she meets WP:GNG or any of the criteria in WP:GNGACTOR. Perhaps, I am missing something though, I couldn't read the articles.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good WP:HEY work done here, Nfitz! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are available on Proquest, which is available through the Wikipedia library to any editor who requests access. Most city libraries also allow home access to anyone with a library card. She doesn't seem active to me, User:Darryl Kerrigan - seems to have all but retired two decades ago, except for an appearance I couldn't even verify in a 2003 direct to video release that may have have been sat on the shelf for years. And then a single 2018 minor appearance in a 2018 TV episode - that I also couldn't verify. Not surprising that there's little to find online from an actor from last century. Nfitz (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears my university database (it searches Novanet libraries and the databases we have access to which does include ProQuest as I have used it before) doesn't get all ProQuest documents as I can't access the ones cited in the article. A Gemini Award would be notable, but neither WP:ENT nor WP:ANYBIO nor WP:GNG have clauses about nominations for awards unless someone has been nominated multiple times (see WP:ANYBIO crit. 2). Also, as a Canadian, I would say that one Gemini nominee does not a notable person make. (I don't pretend to speak for all of Canada; this is just my opinion.) Nfitz, could you please enlighten us as to how the sources you have added would meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC (or even WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT)? I don't wish to overwhelm the WP Library by having everyone from this AfD rush to get access to the same articles. Specifically, I am concerned with coverage being significant. As far as I can guess (based on headlines alone, as I apparently do not have access to these things through my university but I digress) the sources added are all trivial mentions aside from the "substantial in-depth piece from the 1979 Vancouver Sun". (Note also that meeting WP:ENT is a sign that the subject is likely notable but (in my opinion) failure to meet GNG generally overrules that likelihood. So I would be uncomfortable voting keep without evidence in favour of meeting GNG.) Samsmachado (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's borderline GNG, with one substantial piece, and then almost two decades of regular coverage of her career. Though how not appearing in every episode (apparently) of a major award-winning national network program doesn't meet WP:NACTOR I don't know - it was one of only five TV shows that started in 1994 in Canadian television - it's not like the hundreds of shows that you get every year now. Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR requires multiple substantial roles in notable TV shows. (Side Effects (TV series) was cancelled after two seasons presumably due to low viewership and - according to its WP page - never won any Geminis, was only nominated. It happens to be one of 5 TV shows that started in 1994 in Canada that have Wikipedia pages, likely because it's difficult to find WP:RS about Canadian TV in the early 90s and so no one can be bothered to make articles about that.) Side Effects combined with Street Justice might just barely meet WP:NACTOR crit. 1 but without meeting GNG/BASIC, barely meeting WP:NACTOR means the subject probably isn't notable. The big problem for me is that we have no reliable sources citing that she was in most of these shows and none that seem to quantify what capacity she appeared in - ie. how many episodes/what size role/etc. (If this info is included in any of the sources Nfitz found, then these sources should be added to the article and its filmography tables and/or included in this discussion to demonstrate notability.) Hope this clarifies my position. Samsmachado (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when User:Samsmachado, does 29 episodes of Canadian TV, not a large number of episodes, for a 1-hour drama? Especially in the 1990s? How do you relate that to low ratings? I recall disappointment and false hopes at CBC that it wasn't as successful as it's predecessor (similar cast and crew) as Street Legal - but that was unusually popular. Surely it's a bit disingenuous to talk about ratings, given that CBC put it up against the second and third season of X-Files, which was then at it's peak. Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but Street Justice + Side Effects is literally the bare minimum for meeting WP:NACTOR in terms of having "multiple" substantial roles in notable tv shows and/or movies. And, again, I personally am willing to disregard meeting WP:NACTOR (especially barely meeting WP:NACTOR) if the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, and there is no evidence that Mortil does. (also, The X-files ratings peaked in seasons 4 and 5 as you can see on its WP page, fyi) Samsmachado (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine for you personally to disregard her meeting the minimum on actor notability, but others find it alarming that you'd disregard policy. Two roles are multiple roles on notable (by Wikipedia standards) shows. If a teacher advocated for a student who passed by 1% be forced to repeat a course, would that be ok? There is indication the subject meets WP:GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not just personally disregarding policy. It is a well accepted fact that meeting WP:ENT/WP:ACTOR does not guarantee someone is notable. (This has been made very clear through discussions about the notability of YouTubers, for example.) This is explicitly stated at WP:ANYBIO: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (italics, mine) Where is the indication that the subject meets GNG? As far as I can see, there is not significant coverage in multiple independent sources. @DiamondRemley39, you have repeatedly ignored my request (and the requests of others) to prove that any of the sources you have listed contain more than trivial mentions of Mortil. If there is sigcov, I am more than happy to change my vote. But adding a bunch of sources that are all trivial mentions of the subject (which I assume do to lack of evidence otherwise) doesn't do that for me. Samsmachado (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per WP:SNG, "in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged: a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found nor a mandate for a separate page." (emphasis mine). The presumption referred to here is that meeting an SNG only presumes notability. The claim to the SNG WP:ENT/WP:NACTOR is weak here, as we have already discussed. So my argument for deletion based on barely meeting WP:ENT and not meeting WP:GNG is supported by policy. Samsmachado (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samsmachado, please review the edit history of the article and this AfD. You are mistaken in writing "you have repeatedly ignored my request (and the requests of others) to prove that any of the sources you have listed contain more than trivial mentions of Mortil". I have added no sources and I have been asked for no clarification sources by you or anyone else in this AfD. I've merely completed copyedits on the article. We can agree to disagree on whether WP:ENT is met in full or in part and how much weight that carries, but I assume good faith of the work of Nfitz and encourage others to do the same. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39, my sincerest apologies. I confused you and Nfitz. I am sincerely sorry if my tone hurt you. I was confused as this indented discussion was primarily between Nfitz and myself, so I mistakenly forgot to check who I was in conversation with. I should have been more careful to check which user I was referring to. I wrongly thought that because of your insistence that GNG was met without explaining the quality/depth of the sources, that you were Nfitz when you are not. I also assume good faith on Nfitz's part but assuming good faith does not mean assuming notability or source quality when it has not been demonstrated. By assuming good faith, I assume that Nfitz did not add trivial sources in an attempt to purposefully confuse this AfD. I assume good faith in that Nfitz is doing their best to uphold WP policies. But I also acknowledge that Nfitz only explicitly said one of the sources they added was non-trivial and has refused to offer a quantification of the triviality of the other sources. I, again, would like to offer my sincerest apologies and hope that we can return to constructive debate. In that light, I would like to add that you have not made an argument for the subject meeting GNG though you said that "There is indication the subject meets WP:GNG." Would you be able to clarify what you mean by this? Are you relying on an assumption of good faith to demonstrate that the sources added by Nifitz are non-trivial coverage? Sorry again for my earlier mistake.Samsmachado (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The addition of the references described don't inspire confidence, particularly in the light of their naming. Finding any information on the article subject is very hard but a through examination finds a bit-part actor in one-off episodes and low-budget tv films, over quite a long career. but there is no coverage as she is almost invisible, failing WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. Vancouver was her home town. scope_creep^Talk 01:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are either of her main regular roles, in Street Justice and Side Effects - both major prominent programs on the main national netowrk - "one-off episodes" or "low-budget tv films". How, User:scope_creep is a Gemini nominee not notable - it doesn't get higher than that. Also, I'm not sure the relevance of Vancouver in your comment - many of the references are from the other side of the country - and Side Effects her biggest role' was shot in Toronto. I'm not familiar where Titantic was shot. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to chime in here too that Vancouver is more than her hometown. It's a hub of the Canadian television industry. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as roles in the television series of Street Justice and Side Effects meet WP:ENT #1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Other roles may contribute to her meeting this as well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments for the closer:

remarks related to the age of one piece of coverage about her being from 1979 should be disregarded; a good source is a good source; discrimination against professional minors or 1970s journalism has no place here.
there is a tendency for Wikipedians to treat with skepticism the articles that aren't in the first Google results or are not full-text on the open internet. That's going on here and to be blunt that's a personal problem; there is a benefit to going to extra mile by using local, regional, and Wikipedia libraries to improve the encyclopedia.
there is a tendency in AfD for those who have voted to stick by their votes even when the nomination concerns (IMDb-only sourcing; notability) have been addressed. (Oh, and it is somehow a problem that she wasn't in the more popular Titanic of the 1990s... IMO, an inappropriate consideration in the nom.) It's now clear that she passes muster thanks to some in-depth WP:HEY work. If the article is deleted, it will be viewed by some as one more article deleted about a woman who was, in fact, notable enough. Regards! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39 RE: your comment on “inappropriate consideration” - when I first read the article I assumed it was the film, and wanted to clarify in nomination as I felt it was unclear in the article. Not commenting on the miniseries at all, other than it is categorically less notable than one of history’s highest grossing movies. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to everyone who has helped to improve this article considerably. Having reviewed the sources added, I now believe it’s in a far better position than when I nominated it and passes WP:GNG. This is predominantly thanks to sources on Proquest which are missed by WP:BEFORE procedures. I won’t be withdrawing my nomination as there are still other delete !voters above. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, based on improvements by Nfitz. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, by Nfitz. Meets GNG now. Britishfinance (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the situation has drastically improved since the AfD, I can say it meets WP:GNG now. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:28, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawing my nomination. Seems there is a consensus for having different articles for movie character and comic-book character as per User:Erik's comment. (non-admin closure) - Harsh (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logan (film series character)[edit]

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

Unacceptable forking of Wolverine (character), Logan (film) and related articles per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Nothing salvageable to be merged. Creator has copied content from other articles and served us a potpourri. - Harsh (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am working on fixing the issues you have raised; they should be gone by tomorrow. RadioDemon (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioDemon: I usually don't nominate articles so newly created. But I really don't want you to waste efforts. The forking is obvious and two different articles expounding the same subject aren't needed in my opinion. I'll be happy to be proved wrong. - Harsh (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable character. Not surprised that content from films' articles have been used because the character has been in these films! We're not going to have all-new content here, just content re-sorted with a specific scope. We have multiple Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters that have adapted content from films' articles to be more character-centric. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, here are some character-centric significant coverage:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:36, 9 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. Tone 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shihab Rattansi[edit]

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

Non notable journalist and potential WP:AUTOBIOG. WP:BEFORE shows lots of CNN and Al Jazeera bylines but no evidence of independent analysis or coverage. A single-purpose account has made a large number of edits over a period of 10 years. Currently no reliable sources. Awards seem to be low-key and not enough for notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist. We also have to be extra vigilant against allowing autobiographies. If we are not they will destroy the purposed of Wikipedia and turn it into what it is not meant to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: his reporting for AJE is notable, but he isn't really. For example, he and I have almost exactly the same number of followers on Twitter. I can't find any articles about him. Am I missing something? Bearian (talk) 03:46, 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 as part of a mass deletion effort for articles created by the same user. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pooria Arab[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUSICIAN.Wmozart1 (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above vote offers no reasoning and points to a Wikipedia Project, not a notability guideline. That user also created the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The proper guideline is WP:NSINGER, and this artist does not meet any of the requirements. The article appears to have a lot of sources, but some are repeats, most are primary social media/retail listings, and several are unrelated to the singer such as a citation to Urban Dictionary clarifying a slang term. Pure cite-bombing in an attempt to make the article look more robust. Otherwise the singer is only present in the typical press releases and self-promotional sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was actually rejected four days ago under Draft:Pooria Putak. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Social media pages, streaming service links, retail sites and Wikipedia mirrors still does not make anything/anyone notable. Never did, never will. (At least I hope so.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This fits CSD Db-g5 as a creation by blocked user Azizvisi. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:03, 11 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) 22:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moran, California[edit]

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

Another isolated siding, which Gudde here describes precisely: "The siding of the Southern Pacific was established February 2, 1953, and upon the suggestion of David F. Myrick was named for Charles Moran, builder of the Nevada-California-Oregon Railway." This track originated as part of that line, and was eventually abandoned with the rest. There is of course no sign of any structures in the area as far back as I can go. Mangoe (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another railroad siding mistaken for a community. There is nothing that meets minimum requirements for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly another miscategorized siding whose history begins and ends with the railroad. –dlthewave ☎ 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,Another place that is not notable, Alex-h (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable California placename. --Lockley (talk) 07:34, 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 delete. While WP:CANVASS could be a concern here, the pinged editors presented a variety of opinions and so I do not think that the pings compromised the integrity of the discussion. There is consensus that this article, despite its GA status, lacks the kind of sourcing needed to establish notability for a song. While redirection would frequently be an alternative to deletion for songs, and indeed there is some level of consensus here for a redirect, there is no clear redirect target and so the redirect itself would not be policy compliant. We are thus left with deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VKTM[edit]

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

I'd like to start by saying this should not have been promoted to GA status. Looking at the article, 1 of the 9 sources contains 5 retail links to iTunes, another two of the sources are YouTube videos from the record label/artist and therefore not independent. Per Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#The_six_good_article_criteria it fails criteria 2 (verifiable) and 2 (broad in coverage). Per WP:SONGS there is a lot of information that isn't available. GA aside, when you exclude the YouTube and iTunes sources, it hasn't received extensive coverage and is really a WP:STUB. There are some guidelines on stubs at WP:NSONG which say articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This falls into that category too. Its a delete with mention on each of the artists' pages for me. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: This kinda came out of nowhere, whoop. The sources used may be just a few—because yeah, it didn't receive much media coverage—but they are definitely reliable. Also, the song is a single by two (very) notable artists (Inna is a lead artist on this), and the quality is definitely GA-worthy. I'll ping some other users @Aoba47: @MarioSoulTruthFan: @Paparazzzi: Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if it seems random, however, another user kept citing this is a GA example and actually when you consider other short articles that are up for deletion this is very similar. Notability is not inherited just because a notable artist releases something. Also WP:NSONG is very clear that if something is not going to grow beyond a stub is shouldn't exist as an independent article. That's my interpretation of the guidelines. Of course, I'll respect community consensus on this. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 08:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: Oppose: Just to summarize my points: I think this should be kept since it's a full-fledged single released by notable artists that received little, but reliable coverage. Also, the article is well-written and sourced. I'm open to comments. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lil-Unique is right though, just because the artists are notable does not mean the song is automatically notable. Even if it were by the Beatles or Elvis Presley, it wouldn't automatically qualify for its own article unless it could be shown to meet the criteria of WP:NSONG on its own terms. Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don’t see any evidence of this meeting the explicit WP:NSONG criteria. I also don’t see significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG (CelebMix looks like the only independent source about this and I’m not sure it’s reliable, while Dance-Charts styles itself as a portal for "DJ promotion"). There’s also no clear redirect target since it isn’t part of an album and there are three different artists. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have been pinged to this conversation, and I actually agree with the nominator's rationale. A majority of the references are for primary sources (i.e. the iTunes Store and YouTube). The only third-party sources are Celebmix and Dance-Charts, and I do not think that these two sources only meet the requirement that a subject has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines. I also agree with the above discussion that notability is not inherited; just because Inna is a notable artist, that does not mean every single she releases gets an article on that basis alone. I generally prefer a redirect (and this is a viable search term), but since there is not a clear target in this case, I am going with a delete. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is well-written, with reliable sources (maybe with the exception of Dance-Charts). The song is recent, probably is going to be featured on a future EP/album so more information may come. Deleting it seems a drastic option to me. Paparazzzi (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily redirect to Alexandru Cotoi - If the Cotoi article is accurate, his last three singles charted in Romania's top 20. So it's not that far-fetched that this too, might do it in the future. I do think it is a "good" article, in the sense that it isn't currently possible to write a better one. However, I'm not seeing any indication of notability. If the song becomes notable in the future, the GA status can be retained while restoring the article.--N Ø 06:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, if an article is deleted or redirected, its GA status is rescinded, and would need to go through GAN again even if later restored. Also, Lil-unique1, notability is not part of the GA criteria, so an article can meet those criteria without necessarily meeting notability criteria. GAs have been deleted before due to notability issues, and probably will again in the future. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If something doesn't meet notability criteria, then I'd say that alone is enough to automatically fail it at GAN. I thought it was quite obvious that we shouldn't promote pages to GA when they don't even warrant their own articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Although notability isn't mentioned specifically in the GA criteria, broad coverage is. Broad coverage is a component of notability IMO. To be fair, this situation has proven that there is too much variation in GA criteria for songs / its too open to interpretation - there's a few similar articles that are also GAs which are up for deletion too and the conclusion is the same that they should be deleted/redirected. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I have been pinged to this conversation I do have to agree with the nominator and Aoba47, this doesn't meet the criteria right now. Maybe in nearby future, but not as it stands. The only source it meets the guidelines is the Celebmix I have mixed feelings towards it. Furthermore just because it charted doesn't mean it is reliable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21, Lil-unique1, and Richard3120: You guys should consider looking at other GAs that are part of Inna discography and Alexandra Stan discography and open AfDs. I feel like we should get rid of GAs that don't meet criteria. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this fails WP:NSONGS because there's no significant coverage for the track in sources not closely affiliated with artists. CelebMix isn't trustworthy, and I'm not sure whether one can call Dance-Charts reliable, but that either way isn't enough on its own to warrant an article. It shouldn't have been promoted to GA as a result, and contrary to what Cartoon network freak seems to believe, being a single doesn't inherently mean a song should have its own page. Neither does being recorded by notable artists. I agree with MarkH21 that redirecting isn't feasible when it's by three different artists and not part of an album. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1, Aoba47, MarioSoulTruthFan, Paparazzzi, Richard3120, MarkH21, MaranoFan, and SNUGGUMS: I just wanted to give you an update: "VKTM" debuted at number #92 on this week's Airplay 100 chart. Does this indicate some notabiliy? Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, especially when this only gives a brief mention of the track. Charts (or lack thereof) don't automatically indicate whether something warrants a page either. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NSONG, charting is not a strong indication of notability, and it can only show that a song may be notable. The focus should be kept on whether or not it has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources and that is not the case here. So my answer is no. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a no from me. Charting does suggest one might get more coverage in the future but at present it doesn't change the fact that there hasn't been extensive coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good start, maybe it will get more coverage or promotion in the future. In my opinion it still doesn't have enough coverage to be a standalone article currently. However, I'm a bit puzzled by the delete votes; being confused about which artist the title should redirect to is no reason to not have a redirect at all? It's very much a plausible search term. If "365" wasn't notable, would we not have any redirect for it due to confusion if it should redirect to Zedd's or Katy's pages?--N Ø 17:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This single has three people that are named as the primary artists so a clear redirect target does not exist. There would not be a clear reason why the redirect should go to one of them over either of the other two. That is the reason why I voted delete. I would do the same for "365" since Perry and Zedd are both primary artists on the song so a clear redirect target would not exist in that scenario either. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is the same as what Aoba47 just gave. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I recall passing this as a GA because it is a well-written article about the single, which charted and had an accompanying music video --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of those points are entirely moot when no credible third-party references cover the song in much detail. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Significant coverage is the most important aspect of proving notability, and that has not been proven for this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Itunes and YouTube sources are barely helpful for establishing WP:N. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:30, 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. Tone 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bony Bullrich[edit]

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

This person might be notable enough for an article, but I don't think this irretrievably promotional guff is a helpful starting point. —S Marshall T/C 21:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 21:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 21:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all primary sources and no independent, reliable sources where the subject is more than just being mentioned; obvious WP:SOAP. --MewMeowth (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Work in progress Hi all! I will be working on this article to use the sources well and remove the subjective evaluations that may have been automatically generated by the translation of the article in Spanish. Please note this before deleting. Regards --Irvicelli (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC) This user is a single-purpose account and the article creator.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has many of the hallmarks of a promotional autobiography. An independent search found one decent source, but it is not enough. More may exist in a non-English search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:08, 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. Tone 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Turner (actress)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. DarkGlow (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress. One source is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage and she does not have multiple significant roles. SL93 (talk) 05:14, 11 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. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George R. Poulos[edit]

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

Mayors aren't inherently notable and there is no notability asserted in this, or that I could find online. I can find nothing to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG online. I suspect there may be some paper sources but I haven't come across any. Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As author, I was over quick to give him and some other Flint mayors articles. Condensing them down to an expanded list (slowly). Spshu (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors are not inherently notable. We need to find sources to justify having an article. There have been books written on Flint but I am not sure they say much of the mayor. Plus one, lauding Flint as the best American city, was written about a decade before Poulos was mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I thought there was a guideline providing that mayors of cities with a population > 100,000 were deemed notable. If so, Flint in the 1960s (while Poulos was mayor) had a population of approximately 200,000. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, mayors of regional prominent cities are ("at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD"), but they have to have more than the basic. I have only found one additional news article on him. Spshu (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the mayor of a large, well-known city, he rates. The consensus is fairly clear on this. Bearian (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. Flint had a population of 200,000 at the time he was mayor. I've added some sources. Unfortunately, archives of The Flint Journal (the most likely source to find additional significant coverage) are not available online. Cbl62 (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. It is also possible that a number of sources are available but they are offline. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:32, 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. Tone 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driton Latifi[edit]

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

Most coverage is by him not on him - I couldn't find that he meets WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. A successful career, but not a notable one. I can't see a relevant WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough sourcing to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regional reporter. Bearian (talk) 03:52, 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. Tone 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Anderson (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and seems a case of WP:TOOSOON – the subject has released just one song. An awful lot of attempted notability by association (singing with this legend, touring with this icon), but none of it is very substantial. The Alannah Myles tour was either as backing singer or opening act, I'm not quite sure which. His contribution to the Rachel Platten album was backing vocals on one song. I'm not sure what counts as a Canadian Idol "finalist" but he doesn't appear to have reached the televised stages of the last 22, probably one of the 200 before that. The only song of his which has reached any accepted charts anywhere in the world is the co-written one for Wes Mack, and that was only no. 43 on the Canadian Country chart. None of the sources in the article seem to pass WP:RS – the ones that might possibly be are interviews with the artist to promote his song, otherwise it's obviously promotional sources with links to the video, and passing mentions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot add much to the nominator's detailed explanation. It is too soon in the singer's career for notability on his own terms. The article attempts to tie him to various events and celebrities, but notability is not inherited. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm never sure what to do with potential one-hit wonders. Bearian (talk) 03:54, 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. Tone 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanu Ikechukwu Anthony[edit]

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

Shamelessly promotional, fawning and worshipful Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How dare anyone pollute our nice clean encyclopedia with an article about some uppity African! Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was an ordinary academic biography under the promotionalism, which wasn't hard to find. I'll hold off trying to make a judgment about wiki-notability, but regarding WP:PROF#C1, an h-index of 20 looks pretty good for philosophy. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the evidence for notability let alone passing any academic notability guidelines for this Nigerian is lacking. I also have to speak out against the above unjustified attacks on the editor who wisely nominated this article, and against the failure to use precise language, this person is a Nigerian not part of some imagined trans-national community.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete, without a conclusive determination of non-notability, for tone reasons, and doubts as to notability. If the subject does satisfy academic notability or general notability, an article should be written on a blank page. This needs paving over. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Setting aside the accusations of racial bias in the nomination, his linked Google Scholar profile at first glance appears very strong for philosophy, enough for WP:PROF#C1. However, investigation shows that a large fraction of the citations to his works are self-citations, which would not count towards WP:PROF#C1. So I think we would have to look elsewhere for notability. For instance, is his journal Igwebuike a "major, well-established academic journal" as #C8 asks for? My guess is no. Does he have sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources (such as major national Nigerian newspapers) to pass WP:GNG instead of WP:PROF? The article doesn't make a case for that in its current state but I would prefer to reserve judgement in case this AfD can turn up better sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see anything there to prove notability per WP:NACADEMIC without very generous interpretation and lots of benefit of doubt; I'm not convinced this article would exist but for some promo/COI editing. Therefore IMO not worth the effort to completely rewrite this, to weed out the other issues (tone/language, fluff, peacockery, etc). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 20:43, 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 merge to List of parks in Omaha, Nebraska. No consensus to keep, but a consensus to merge as an ATD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pulaski Park (Omaha)[edit]

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

A non-notable local neighborhood park, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's really no claim to notability about a city block square park with standard city block part features. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of parks in Omaha, Nebraska. No claim of notability for an article, but the List article has no info on this park, so it should be summarized there. MB 04:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of parks in Omaha, Nebraska as an WP:ATD-M that will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, WP:ATD. (t · c) buidhe 09:30, 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 keep. No consensus to delete this BLP and sources provided by known RS specifically covering the subject have not been challenged. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. L. Santhosh[edit]

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

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

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

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

A non-notable politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - General Secretary of the country's ruling party = notable. Ingratis (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Ingratis: Where in the hierarchy is "General Secretary"? Is he the #1 person or the #2 person or lower?

Keep - BL Santosh is currently serving as the General Secretary (Organization) of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the second highest office within the BJP after the President. Before holding to this position he had also held other significant offices. He also receives significant media coverage. Manasbose (talk) 6:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep scrapes though WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

References

^ "Is BL Santhosh The new 'Modi' of Karnataka?". Deccan Chronicle. 1 September 2019. Retrieved 10 July 2020.
^ "K'taka's BL Santhosh elevated to BJP General Secretary, party's 2nd most powerful role". The News Minute. July 15, 2019. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
^ Deepa Balakrishnan (July 16, 2019). "Why BJP Promotion For RSS Loyalist BL Santhosh Should Have Yeddyurappa Looking Over His Shoulder". News 18. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
^ "How BL Santhosh is redefining role of RSS pointsman in BJP under Amit Shah". Rohini Swamy. ThePrint. 9 January 2020. Retrieved 10 July 2020.

Additional Comment - He got significant media coverage even before becoming General Secretary (Organization) in 2019.^[1]^[2]. Manasbose (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously keep, a senior officer of India's ruling party is authomatically notable, Bacus15 (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ManuAiyappa Kanathanda (May 3, 2017). "Why BL Santhosh can't be the Yogi Adityanath of Karnataka". timesofindia.com. Bangaluru: Times of India. Retrieved 10 July 2020.
^ Bhaskar Hegde (Jan 27, 2017). "BL Santhosh behind the rebellion in Karnataka BJP?". deccanchronicle.com. Bangaluru: Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 10 July 2020.

Keep No doubt that the person is notable. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:03, 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) 23:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhola, Tibet[edit]

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

There is no content for this page except that of Dhola Post, for which a separate exists. It is in fact doubtful that there is even a place called "Dhola" or that it was ever controlled by Tibet, except for a few months of Chinese occupation during the Sino-Indian War. In any case, this page fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems to be a totally spurious place. I do not think a redirect to the other article makes sense. Mangoe (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~WP:POVFORK of Dhola Post. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

The article appears to be an earlier creation, though still full of aspersions and content bordering on POVPUSH. So the vote stands. Gotitbro (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither populated nor legally recognized, fails notability per WP:GEOLAND. If disputed, merge to a relevant article. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom SerChevalerie (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:44, 12 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. Tone 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CollabMobile[edit]

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

A promotional attempt WP:PROMO. Calling for an AfD. Hatchens (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any good sources that would make this pass per GNG. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources to show notability Suonii180 (talk) 14:42, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artage News[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. Hatchens (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I highly doubt the accuracy of the article too. Since its launch in 2017, it has accumulated millions of viewers across the globe with a strong presence in the Bengal market makes me feel suspicious about the article. Also when I look it up, I find nothing but Facebook, Fandom, and pages from the corporation that owns the site. Therefore I believe the article subject is not notable. Koridas 📣 17:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:14, 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) 23:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Zand[edit]

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

Autobiography with no independent, reliable sources. The Instagram account of of #matièrenumérique by @zdrilx, a post on medium.com by Tristan Zand and Booty Machine v1.0 2007 (aka bootymachine.net v1.0 2007) Tristan 'Z' Zand / Vincent 'Vinston' Thaon The medium article helpfully links to this Wikipedia entry. Vexations (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place to post your autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ineffectively referenced. scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can tell through a Google search, doesn't meet WP:GNG. This is also possibly a promotional or COI article, since the page creator has a long history of creating/editing Dualphotography, a term that was coined by, and has only been mentioned in sources written by, Tristan Zand. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:54, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cragg[edit]

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

Unsuccessful political candidate fails WP:NPOL; only supported by local sources. KidAd (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable failed political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with nom. — Infogapp1 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deltet fails notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to 2012 Delaware gubernatorial election. Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 19:53, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SymTorrent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This obscure torrent client for Symbian (a dead operating system) never got much attention anywhere and will not get it in the future since its platform has been abandoned. Fails notability per GNG. See also the arguments of the previous AfD. Ysangkok (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a few mentions of of this client here and there, but they do nothing but establish that it used to exist. There is no actual significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that would allow this to pass the WP:GNG. The "Keep" arguments at the prior AFD that resulted in the no consensus are not based on any Wikipedia policy, and would be discounted today. Rorshacma (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: wasn't it already in the list of software related discussions? --Ysangkok (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very surprised the article was kept in the first afd given the non-policy arguments for keep, but the situation is no better now that the operating system is defunct. Fails WP:GNG – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:44, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cierkosz[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD due to previous de-PRODing and refund. No indication this is a culturally notable surname. Not suitable for reworking into name-based disambig page, as there are no article titles which contain this name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'del per nom; no persons even in pl:wiki either. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence the name is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per nom and Piotrus. --Lockley (talk) 19:56, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Base58[edit]

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

This is an obscure implementation detail of Bitcoin Core (base58 encoding does not exist in the blockchain). There are no reliable sources, and the IPFS hashes work differently too (see talk page), so it makes little sense to have one article generalizing over both these encodings. The article is currently citing exclusively unreliable sources like the Bitcoin Wiki (not a reliable source since it is an open wiki) and Flickr documentation (self-published). Github cannot be cited either, that is a primary source for the IPFS claims. The book may be citable, but given that the subject is so obscure, I don't think it makes sense to have this article. Ysangkok (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~Merge with List of bitcoin forks~~ Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: how does this belong in a list of forks? I don't understand, could you explain? --Ysangkok (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: Wait you're right. I thought it has something to do with Bitcoin Classic... P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Anyone can come up with a new way of encoding Base2 (binary) in some other base. They might even get it mentioned in passing in a few sources. And creating an implementation in various languages would be trivial. I could create, say, Base11 (for Spinal Tap fans) and Base666 (for use by daemons), write up some routines for Python, C, Forth, GW-BASIC, LOLCODE and Whitespace, and publish them on GitHub. Notability? Not so easy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone already had the Base11 idea. See Base 11. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of numeral systems § Standard positional numeral systems. We certainly do not have the sources to argue notability here. I removed the github and wiki sources, leaving on a single book (with admittedly good coverage) and some technical documentation from Flickr. But the one source, and a sentence or two from the article, would be well-suited to the table of bases in the merge target. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing special with this encoding base 2, this is not a notable issue. Nika2020 (talk) 22:28, 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) 16:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: This is pretty useful to show document IDs in URLs. We are using this in our products. I always refer to this page new developers to read about it. I do not get why delete it at all. It is a valid concept used in software in practice. I do not get an argument that "book might be citable" but that this is not enough. Why not? And obscure? There are 110 packages only on NPM implementing base58. I would not call this obscure? GitHub finds 333 repositories in all possible programming languages. There is a Debian package. And Google finds about 1,950,000 results when searching for base58. Mitar (talk) 18:43, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Adjei Sikapa[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best borderline notability per WP:BIO; the few references there are, are all effectively just short obituaries. Also, half (at least) of the article is copypaste from the sources (which all repeat the same content, so don't know what the original source is). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Barely found anything about him aside from his death, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 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. Even if I found the point on passing WP:NJOURNAL was made out, which I don't, that is an essay and passing it does not show notability I am afraid. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos and History[edit]

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

Fails WP:NJOURNAL. This WP:FRINGE journal has not generated the necessary notice for a standalone article. jps (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though I read a Josephson article, and didn't understand a word of it. More important, it fails WP:NJOURNAL and hence GNG. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing anything stand out from the WP:NFRINGE area either. I feel like a journal would have to get pretty notorious for pseudoscience in that area to reach notability that way too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe journal that fails WP:NJOURNAL and WP:GNG. I don't know who is doing the "peer reviewing" over there, but the results suggest that it consists of asking some crackpots to review other crackpots. I can think of no other way that [11], [12], and [13] got published. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be scrupulously fair, it is indexed in Scopus [14], but in a very "yes, this exists" way. We're not talking about Noûs or Erkenntnis or Foundations of Physics here. I tend to think that when the subject matter tends to the fringe, we have to be particularly careful about trusting any kind of metric, because it's on the fringe where the gaming of metrics is particularly deleterious. Would I !vote to keep a journal that publishes drily respectable content if all we had on it was a database entry? Well, the harm of doing so would be less. In this case, there doesn't seem to be anything to say about it, other than the list of people who have published there, and that list is a litany of reasons not to take it seriously. Journals can become notorious for printing bunkum, but this one seems to be both nonsensical and ignored. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are pretty much all of the form "X exists" or "$CRANK wrote for this journal, source, p[aper by $CRANK in this journal". Guy (help!) 23:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:JOURNALCRIT. It satisfies Criterion 1 via C1.b (included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases) through inclusion in Scopus. It is also included in ESCI, which Clarivate (publisher of Journal Citation Reports) characterizes as "a trusted set of journals" which "contains quality publications, selected by our expert in-house editors for editorial rigor and best practice at a journal level" [15]. Notable writers publishing in the journal include Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson [16], MacArthur Fellow Stuart Kauffman [17], neural network pioneer Paul Werbos [18] (discoverer of backpropagation), and physicist Henry Stapp [19] (worked with Pauli, Heisenberg, and Wheeler). Yes, the journal values "questioning and challenging prevailing assumptions". But per WP:FRINGE: Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines. That is why we have criteria like the above, which this journal satisfies. Tim Smith (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:JOURNALCRIT is an essay rather than a guideline, it also says "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." That seems to be the case here. --tronvillain (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To quote WP:JOURNALCRIT, It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. In the absence of reliable, independent secondary sourcing beyond a couple database entries, we don't really have material to write an article with, and notability is not inherited from a few notable people having published there over the years. Yes, we have articles on publishers with shady reputations, pseudo-academic organizations that are outright frauds, and worthless journals. But in those cases, there's something to say, and here, there ... isn't, really. We shouldn't let databases do our thinking for us. (It's also worth reflecting that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is an essay, not a guideline; i.e., it hasn't gone through the process of codifying a solid consensus behind it. So, while it has good advice, it's not as field-tested as the guideline for academic people is. Discussions about deleting articles on journals come up less often, and consequently, the precedents are less numerous, and the gray areas are grayer.) I'd be open to discussing a redirect to the publisher, but slice it any way I try, I can't make a case for a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, replied to the above comment before reading further and seeing that you'd quoted precisely the same thing. Ah well. Superficial reading of WP:JOURNALCRIT combined with treating it as a guideline seems likely to promote a lot of journal stubs. --tronvillain (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep indexed in Scopus since 2011, passes WP:NJOURNALS. Ranks #295/606 in Philosophy (not that this would ever make it a WP:RS). Cited decently often (e.g. [20]). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, LOL! First cite was to a Lulu book. Because of course it was! Guy (help!) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of quack cites to it yes. Which is normal, given the quackiness of its content. But you'll have Edinburgh Press books citing it too. The more "serious" cites come from the realm of ~~religious pablum nonsense crap~~ *cough* theological studies though, not physics. Stuff related to Hegel mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Humanities Press - There doesn't seem to be much to write about if the only sources are primary. —Paleo Neonate – 14:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Explorations of of the origins of consciousness are not WP:FRINGE. If you deem so, then you might as well delete all of Richard Dawkins's books and explorations.Whiteguru (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What do Richard Dawkins' books have to do with this journal specifically? XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Or with WP:FRINGE? —Paleo Neonate – 09:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if there weren't fringe issues, there don't seem to be enough sources to actually say much about it. --tronvillain (talk) 17:44, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Lake, California[edit]

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

The description "located on the Southern Pacific" in Lassen County usually means a Nevada-California-Oregon Railway station/siding, and that's we've got here, with the minor variation of there being some foundations to see, mostly for the water tank shown in the topos. Those maps show precious little else, though, except for two other railroad-related buildings. Gudde has only a passing mention, and Fairchild's history of the county mentions the eponymous lake and its surroundings several times, but nothing about a town or settlement, except for a ranch which it isn't clear was here. The lake makes searching a great pain, not to mention the hits on every "__ Horse Lake" in California and several other states, but I can find no evidence this was anything but a water stop. Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a rail siding, no sign of a community here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:20, 10 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) 23:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Rice[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Nothing to indicate that subject meets any applicable biographical notability criteria. Specifically:

WP:1E / WP:VICTIM - The main claim to notability, erroneously claimed in the article for 14 years, seems to have been that the subject was shot and killed by the police in Dublin in the early 1940s. While I can find evidence that the subject was shot by the police, all the evidence suggests that he survived and was imprisoned. Living for many decades after his release. Regardless, being the victim of a shooting (fatal or otherwise) does not contribute to notability.
WP:INHERITED - The secondary claim to notability, seemingly claimed in the article (perhaps less erroneously), is that the shooting of the subject was attributed to Denis O'Brien (police officer). While this is not substantiated in any of the sources I can find, even if it was definitively established that the subject was shot by someone notable/notorious/whatever, that does not contribute to notability. Notability is not "transferred". By a bullet or otherwise.
WP:MILPERSON - The tertiary claim to notability, implied in the lead/cats/etc, is that the subject was a member of the IRA. Being a member of such a group doesn't contribute to notability on its own.
WP:GNG - The only remaining claim to notability is that the subject might have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. As per the related discussion on the article talkpage, given that I have had to trawl through any number of "passing mentions" in various sources (to establish even the basic facts of the subject's life/claimed-death/imprisonment/etc) it is very clear to me that GNG/SIGCOV is not met. There are no biographical sources which cover the subject directly. His name pops up in other sources. But always in the context of other people and other events. I had to engage in SYNTH and OR myself to even establish whether the subject was alive. Not to mind anything else. I could find no sources that deal with the "topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content".

In short, I do not see why we have this article. It stood for 14 years only as an example of why we have WP:VER guidelines. And now seems to stand only as an example of why we have WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not much going on here to justify notability. ww2censor (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. not a notable person. Spleodrach (talk) 18:22, 9 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) 23:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chham Chhama Chham[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 its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the usual listing sites and offers to sell the music, and also a passing mention which described it as "instantly bombing". Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is insufficient sourcing to justify any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails NFILM Spiderone 20:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced with no assertion of notability. --Lockley (talk) 20:57, 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 no consensus. Due to limited participation after two relists there is no consensus for this discussion. Recommend waiting at least a couple of months before any possible renomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10x Management[edit]

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

Unremarkable companies, the references don't add up and one is a blog.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an early pioneer in the field, frequently used as an example, for example in the (2015) book Getting a Coding Job For Dummies. Seems to get a fair amount of press, much of which is not currently represented in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable with no assertion of notability. --Lockley (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to notability is as a pioneer in the agency representation of programmers and other highly-sought IT professionals. In addition to meeting WP:GNG requirements of significant independent coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Getting a "fair amount" of press (even in reputable publications) is not enough for a reference to establish notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Usually, analyst reports which profile a company are considered good references but the Forrester report that mentions this company is a mention without a company profile. The Economist article relies on information provided by a co-founder and fails ORGIND. The Bloomberg reference doesn't have any in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is more about the experiences of software engineers than the company itself. The New Yorker magazine piece is really churnalism where the journalist is a fly-on-the-wall of a client's experience in deciding to hire 10x and also fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on information provided by the company or their client. The NYT article is a blog post and fails WP:RS. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with regard to its pioneering aspect see, for example, Altringer, Beth. "Globetrotting Digital Nomads: The Future of Work or Too Good to Be True." Forbes Leadership Forum. 2015., Younger, Jon. "How learning and development are becoming more agile." Harvard Business Review. 2016., "Silicon Valley Goes Hollywood: Top Coders Can Now Get Agents" Bloomberg Businessweek April 2013 (subscription required) and in Russian: Красов, Вадим Олегович. "ОСОБЕННОСТИ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСКИМИ РЕСУРСАМИ В СЕКТОРЕ ИНФОРМАЦИОННЫХ ТЕХНОЛОГИЙ." Экономическая среда 3 (2016): 139-142. (subscription required) and Chinese: "独家解密硅谷程序员经纪公司码农变身巨星". --Bejnar (talk) 19:29, 6 July 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)} 15:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Response This article (PDF) was originally published on Forbes sites and as a blog posting, fails WP:RS. This from Harvard Business Review is a single mention-in-passing "As importantly,more and more top agile talents, for example those represented by 10X Management, are only interested in working in environments where the work is interesting, and they are welcomed as a team member.", fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This from Bloomberg is entirely based on an interview with a co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND. The reference from lanbook.com (in Russian) briefly mentions the company on page 3 to note that 10x is based in Silicon Valley and former programmers work there (Так, в Кремниевой долине появилась компания по поиску талантов - 10X Management . В ней работают бывшие программисты и продюсеры.), fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This from sohu.com is also entirely based on an interview with a co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Bailey (politician)[edit]

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

Résumé-like BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The place he's mayor of has a population of just 36K, which is nowhere near large enough to hand him an automatic presumption of notability -- the notability test he would have to pass is not just the ability to verify that he exists as a mayor, but the ability to write and source some genuine substance about the political significance of his time as mayor. But other than pre-political career background and routine reportage of the municipal election, the only other claims of significance being attempted here are that he was the first openly gay mayor of his own town, which is not an instant inclusion freebie in and of itself, and that he won minor awards like the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Medal and a local Rotary Club award, which don't pass WP:ANYBIO as "inherently" notability-making awards. And as for the sourcing, there are five primary sources that are not support for notability at all, four pieces of routine local reportage of the municipal election, three glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, and two articles in weekly community hyperlocals that are covering him in non-notability-building contexts like being a volunteer and expressing his own local-interest opinion on the local impact of a national political issue. (And no, he doesn't get an article just because his predecessor has one, either -- his predecessor has an article for having been a provincial MPP, not for having been a mayor per se.) This is just not what it takes to make a smalltown mayor notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable mayor, per the nominators very detailed explanation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree totally with the nominator and the above user JW 1961 Talk 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed as per the re-listing comment, my Delete stands, sources are local press coverage of a local mayor JW 1961 Talk 10:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added 11 references. There's no end of local coverage of him, with lots of detailed, in-depth coverage. There's also mentions in major media publications going back 20 years. Meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The expected local coverage in local media does not clinch the notability of a smalltown mayor — every mayor of everywhere can always show some evidence of local interest coverage in their local media, so if that were how it worked then our entire concept of distinguishing between notable and non-notable mayors would be completely meaningless, because no mayor of anywhere could ever actually fall below the bar anymore. Rather, the way mayoral notability actually works is that in this size of town, a mayor has to show nationalized coverage, not just "within his own local media market" coverage, to warrant a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it meets GNG, that's all irrelevant - we don't throw away GNG. It's hardly stunning that a mayor of a city (I'd hardly say town, let alone small town ... St. George is a small town, but Paris isn't a small town - how can the combined municipality be a small town? Population is three times larger than the City of London, and the last 31 of those were notable. Perhaps it's as simple that a mayor in a media market with multiple newspapers and radio stations is probably going to meet GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The population of the County of Brant is 36,707; the population of the City of London is 383,822. And even Paris only has a population of 12,310, which is also still a small town by any normal definition of that term. I don't know what numbers you were looking at, but the population of Brant isn't three times the size of London — London is larger, by a factor of ten. It's probably true that a mayor in a major media market can meet GNG on predominantly local coverage — but Brant isn't a major media market. GNG does test for more than just the number of media hits, and always has — it does test for geographic range, and it does expect wider regional or national attention in some contexts than it does in others. Bearcat (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be the most outrageous false statement that I've ever heard. Where, User:Bearcat do you get the population of the City of London being 383,822? The city is famous for having virtually no population.Their own website clearly states that they had 7.400 residents in the last census! My gosh, you'll say absolutely anything to support a snap judgement you've made. I'm increasingly concerned about your competency to edit. Nfitz (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your fucking high horse. I just made a simple mistake, erroneously thinking you were talking about London, Ontario — and considering that you raised it as a comparison to towns in Southwestern Ontario, the London in Southwestern Ontario is the rational reading of "London" in that context. That doesn't make me incompetent or a liar — it makes you a person who made a very counterintuitive comparison, which I read in a way that even if it was a mistake, it was an entirely logical and understandable and rational one. (And after your accusation that I nominated another article to "retaliate" against a person who had absolutely nothing to do with it, let's just call my misreading even-steven since I can just point the exact same finger right back at you anyway. But I digress.) At any rate, it's still not a useful comparison: the City of London UK is not a standalone community of 9,000 people that exists in isolation, it's a local government area covering the central business district of a massive metropolitan city of 8 million. The structure of municipal governance in the United Kingdom is nothing like the structure of municipal governance in Canada, so the Lord Mayor of the City of London is not equivalent to a mayor of a town of 9K people in Canada — if he has any equivalent in Canada at all, it would be a fairly high-ranking figure in Toronto, not a smalltown mayor. And even if you ignore all that and just focus on the population anyway, most of its Lord Mayors still have other preexisting notability claims well beyond a "smalltown" mayoralty — mostly actual knighthoods, in fact. Bearcat (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ... Ontario never crossed my mind. Though given I linked it, and the Lord Mayor (you well know that mayors aren't called that in Ontario), then your time would better spent actually reading what you are replying to that using unacceptable language. How you could possibly think that I'd suggest the London Ontario was bigger than Paris Ontario makes no sense. On one hand, your are correct, that being in the central business district it is more prominent ... but being the in charge of tiny London borough is surely less prominent than mayor of single tier municipality. City of London has relatively few responsibilities. Either way, the WP:CIVIL violation is beyond the pale - please apologize. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you never used the expression "Lord Mayor" to clarify anything at all — hiding it behind a link I didn't have any responsibility to click on at all if I thought I already knew what you were talking about is not the same thing as using the phrase in the body of your comment for clarification. So there's no reason that I should somehow have "known better" just because you piped it out of a wikilink, if you didn't actually use it in visible text. And if you think that makes me negligent for not double-checking the links, then I'm just going to point you right back to your failure to double-check who had actually created the Dylan Perceval-Maxwell page before accusing me of listing it for deletion just to "retaliate" against a person who had absolutely nothing to do with it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? Wikipedia also does not have, and has never had, any rule that using a swear word is automatically verboten, or a WP:CIVIL violation — in exactly no version of reality would a Wikipedian ever be blocked just for very occasionally using a swear word. CIVIL is about attacking people, not forbidding the use of swear words. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding it behind a link? How did you not see that when you clicked on the link? How did you not AGF when I noted that a city of 1/3 the size and click on the link for London? The bottom line is that you failed to properly read the comment, failed AGF and assumed that I didn't know how big London Ontario is. You then proceeded to blame me for your errors, using unnecessarily uncivil language. I apologized and retracted my error - will you do the same? (while not rhetorical, I can guess the answer). Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what the hell part of "I thought I knew what you were talking about and did not click on the link" did you not comprehend the first time? Secondly, what part of "you'd best just drop this line of attack now, because anything you can say about my oversight here I can just throw directly back in your face over the much more serious error you made in another AFD" did you not comprehend the first time? Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis and commentary regarding the sources added to the article would be beneficial here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not properly referenced. No notability as well. Ashishkafle (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could User:Ashishkafle expand on what they mean by "not properly referenced"? Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz. The subject passes GNG, and I do not agree with the NPOL guideline so that issue does not concern me. Bearcat's argument about OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST just means we ought to create articlees on all those other mayors as well. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is no size limit. The point of notability should be to determine whether a subject has significant coverage to write a useful article, not whether they meet some arbitrary standard for importance. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPOL, the article is written sort of like a CV so fails WP:PROMO, and all of the coverage is hyper-local. Clear delete. SportingFlyer T·C 17:49, 1 July 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)} 15:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL policy. Mayor of very small county. On top of that the article is extremely promotional. scope_creep^Talk 22:51, 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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sala Polivalentă (Oradea)[edit]

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

Clear Case of WP:TOOSOON, not yet build CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Certainly you want to prove yourself, you could have clicked on the provided links, how to be too soon when the arena is at 40%? Photos & Videos You should have checked! Plus don't forget nowadays we even have this category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_indoor_arenas but this arena is UNDER CONSTRUCTION and goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indoor_arenas_under_construction_in_Romania. The admininstrators should have already removed your template instead of listing it! It is a mistake. Rostadia2012 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rostadia2012, 40% is not ready, so it is WP:TOOSOON. You can publish it again if it is built and ready. Just because you created a category does not mean that your article is not a candidate for being deleted. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:15, 30 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)} 15:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:02, 8 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sala Polivalentă (Bistrița)[edit]

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

Clear Case of WP:TOOSOON, not yet build CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Certainly you want to prove yourself, you could have clicked on the provided links, how to be too soon when the arena is at 15%? Photos & Videos You should have checked! Plus don't forget nowadays we even have this category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_indoor_arenas but this arena is UNDER CONSTRUCTION and goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indoor_arenas_under_construction_in_Romania. The admininstrators should have already removed your template instead of listing it! It is a mistake. Rostadia2012 (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 30 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)} 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:03, 8 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 Houlihan Lokey. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin Gold[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; non-notable businessman. KidAd (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Exactly zero substantive argument supporting deletion. That Wikipedia has a determined cadre of editors who believe that business, finance and economics do not merit as detailed or comprehensive coverage as professional wrestling, reality television, and Youtube "influencers"/exhibitionists is both undeniable and utterly deplorable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference WP:GNG. As for the rest of your rant, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And still no substantive argument, just ad hominem blather. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the policy you cited for your Speedy Keep? I'll wait. KidAd (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources here do not add up to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Lots of sources but they don't qualify as in-depth, independent, and reliable. Glendoremus (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be odd to delete this page as he is a well known notable businessman, I have found this page useful in the past and would find it odd if he lost his page.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 30 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)} 15:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Houlihan Lokey, as all the media coverage seems to be about the company rather than him. The page is a near-orphan and as an individual, he fails WP: NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Houlihan Lokey. The subject himself fails GNG as not being mentioned outside a few business journals. Most of the article reflects his activity at the company anyway, so anything worth saving should be merged there and the rest discarded. StonyBrook (talk) 00:26, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Johnson (anchorman)[edit]

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

Successful local news anchor, but lacking the extensive coverage or significant career to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable local broadcaster. --Lockley (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan New Z-Car[edit]

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

See WP:AUTOCONV#Unannounced vehicles. There is no official information about this car yet, and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Vossanova ^o< 14:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiqOLRJi7nU XxXvamXxX (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. When there is sufficient official information, it can be added to Nissan Z-car, and once (if) a new article is warranted it can be created at that time. "Nissan New Z-Car" is not a plausible redirect. --Sable232 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. 182.30.133.55 (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads like an advertisement. I agree with Sable232 about the possibility of merging, or deleting and re-adding, if more information is found. Kingdom(Hearts)Come (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and rename to Nissan 400Z. There seems to be some articles from reputable sources re this. It may be worth incubating as opposed to deletion. Nightfury 10:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least merge, as easily WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:36, 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign English Non-League players[edit]

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

Largely unreferenced list of minor foreign players in the UK. This is a clear case of indiscriminate collection of information Slashme (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. A list of non-English players who've played in minor (not fully professional leagues) is not needed here. Already been moved back to draft space one and the user moved it back to article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and, as adjunct to NOTSTATS, non-league lists can be difficult to maintain accurately. Eagleash (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- indiscriminate, difficult to maintain, and is of little navigational value. Reyk _YO! 14:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:V. Just because someone exists and has a job doesn't entitle them to be named on Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Giant Snowman 10:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is really just trivia -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the comments above, we have categories for this sort of thing. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:27, 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 speedy delete. Consensus for speedy deletion and meets A7 criteria. Nick (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LIL' K[edit]

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

non-notable rapper with no meaningful coverage. A search of both Lil K and his given name reveal only 2 sources, neither of which are substantial. (Lil K does reveal a bit more but about a wrestler who is unrelated.) Praxidicae (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable rapper. fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon 15:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non Notable rapper --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:57, 8 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. Consensus that the resort is notable. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loola Adventure Resort[edit]

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

Not notable, no sources in article and could not find any SIGCOV in RS after a search. Does not meet criteria for WP:NCORP. Netherzone (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable in both Singaporean education and in Asian eco resorts.† Encyclopædius 13:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in depth by various reliable independent sources. The Safe Water Gardens in the resort are interesting, maybe enough for a separate article. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good sources establish notability. --Lockley (talk) 23:15, 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 keep. No consensus to delete and a consensus that the subject meets NPROF, and to a weaker extent NAUTHOR and GNG. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Matarazzo[edit]

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

Subject never held a named chair, does not appear to qualify as notable per WP:ACADEMIC, references here are either WP:PRIMARY or are part of his obituary. Non-trivial discussion of the subject in independent reliable published sources seems to be lacking. His list of publications does not make him notable. A loose necktie (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject's area of expertise is admittedly niche within the academic world. There are no named chairs in his field. While he did receive the highest honors possible in his field from the recognised international organization representing his profession (Special Libraries Association) and held the most senior academic post in a university known for his field, I will endeavor to add reliable secondary sources to justify his inclusion. Note that his inclusion is no less justified than his PhD supervisor Thomas J. Galvin whose inclusion is not questioned. I would appreciate time to work on this article prior to a decision on deletion to conform with WP:ACADEMIC. IACOBVS (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NACADEMIC is plausible. Subject meets, at least, WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1,2,3 within his field. IACOBVS (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The academic study of special libraries does indeed appear to be a low-citation discipline, so I don't think we should read too much into the unimpressive numbers in Matarazzo's citation record, but neither is that a justification for keeping the article on WP:PROF#C1 grounds. And our article Special Libraries Association says that its fellow title is "awarded to mid-career SLA members", which is not the kind of "highly selective honor" that would pass #C3. So the strongest claim to WP:PROF notability would appear to be through #C2 and the SLA Hall of Fame and John Cotton Dana Award. Additionally, the article already listed two reviews of two of his books and I added four more reviews of two more books. It's a little on the light side for WP:AUTHOR but above threshold for me. So combining #C2 and AUTHOR, and the one in-depth reliably-published obituary (not enough for WP:GNG by itself, but also contributing to notability) I come down as a keep on this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with David Eppstein. Subject meets WP:PROF#C2 and has additional justification for keeping it when combined with elements of WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. IACOBVS (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to a combination of WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:16, 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) 23:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanuj Khatri[edit]

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

Subject is a non notable politician that has held organisational level posts. Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, as well as general notability guidelines, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. There are some indications of COI, which I will not mention here because of WP:Beans. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Telegraph is a notable one but its not on him, and rest the page seems to be promotional clearly fails WP:NPOL.Dtt1^Talk 12:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Appears to be a promotional article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non notable promotional article. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant non trivial coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:44, 12 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) 11:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Acosta[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior appearances, no significant coverage. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. Interstellarity (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a footballer he has a record in the main pages of this sport. Most of the sportsmen do not have as reference the media. --Fittipaldi92 (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total fail of the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 10 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) 23:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harney, Nevada[edit]

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

Stub on a Nevada unincorporated community based on GNIS data, which isn't very reliable. Almost all sources mention it in the context of the 1939 City of San Francisco derailment, which took place nearby. I'm not seeing much evidence that there ever was a populated settlement here. Our article on the derailment describes it as a "rail siding", and this 1941 court judgement describes it as a "railroad section crew headquarters". I suspect the railway had something here but that doesn't translate to a community. There's clearly no community there now, satellite imagery just shows a patch of desert next to the railway and a river, with no structures visible. If it's not a populated place then per WP:GEOLAND it needs to pass the WP:GNG and it clearly doesn't. Hut 8.5 19:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Hut 8.5 19:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good place to put this? It's not notable enough for a standalone, but I think we should preserve the place and coordinates somewhere, given there was a railroad section foreman stationed there. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could redirect to the article on the derailment, which does mention it. Hut 8.5 20:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Places should have at least one government citation, and I found a few Nevada and USA documents at Google Books. Koridas 📣 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at those hits? The vast majority have nothing to do with Harney, Nevada. The first two relate to Harney County, Oregon. The third one is a statement by a Mr Corbin Harney who lived in Nevada. The fourth one is about Harney Peak Granite. The fifth one is actually about Harney, Nevada, but it's a record of a labour dispute and doesn't show anything other than that in 1957 it had a section foreman and a telephone line. The next one is about Harney Lake (Oregon), the next one is about Corbin Harney again, etc. Hut 8.5 20:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found a 1950s aerial which shows the station (long gone, of course) but there isn't anything there otherwise, and now there is nothing at all except the railroad and surrounding desert. Its only notability is in relation to the wreck; possibly it could be redirected there with some cleanup of the latter. Mangoe (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the derailment article, pretty clear this is a rail siding not a community. Hog Farm (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. As per my comments on the talk page:

"Carlson writes that Harney was/is a non-agency Southern Pacific station, so WP:STATION appears to apply. The only reason Harney is of note is because of the 1939 City of San Francisco derailment, possibly an act of sabotage that killed 24 people. Perhaps the Harney page should be removed? Cxbrx (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

"I believe that Harney, Nevada is not notable because WP:GEOLAND says that geographic locations do not inherit notability from events. Cxbrx (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cxbrx (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another case of identification by GNIS. All evidence says Harney is a rail station and not a community. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 15:52, 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) 10:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna Luna[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic performer / gentlemen's club dancer. Coverage in RS is non-existent, and the coverage she does have is mainly adult industry sources, which have been consistently rejected in previous AfDs/DRVs eg [21][22][23] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The only plausibly reliable and non-trivial coverage appears to be the 2012 AVN fresh faces listicle. An independent search for RS coverage yields only brief mentions and cast listings. The fan award win would not have satisfied WP:PORNBIO when it was in effect. • Gene93k (talk) 11:52, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Kane[edit]

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

Non-notable former pornographic actress. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous nomination. Kane was one of the longest active and prolific female performers in porn (30+ years) probably only behind Nina Hartley, very well-known for not only her involvement contributions in straight porn, but the gay porn industry as well. She has been inducted into nearly every porn Hall of fame there is including best known ones AVN and XRCO in addition to other awards won, was even named a trailblazer by the GayVN awards in 2010. There is some independent sources out there outside of the porn industry itself, the Morning Olympian newspaper article, a good amount of coverage including biographical info about her in the Joey Stefano (whom she was close to for years) book Wonder Bread and Ecstasy written by Charles Isherwood, the book Coming Attractions: The Making of an X-Rated Movie cover the production of the film Stairway to Heaven, which Kane starred in and directed, plus various other mentions of various degrees in books and scholars on google. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some links to these sources? For books, ISBN and page number would be of help. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The Morning Olympian newspaper article is already cited in article. The books Wonder Bread and Ecstasy and Coming Attractions: The Making of an X-Rated Movie are both on Google Books, but unfortunately only give limited previews. Searching "Sharon", "Kane", and "Sharon Kane" can show some excepts from some of the pages related to her. 1, 2 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer lacking the level of indepdent, 3rd party secondary source in-depth independent coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment John Pack Lambert I just provided three of those earlier in the AFD. Would you mind giving your analysis on why those three sources aren't good enough? Thank you. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe she passes the GNG after reviewing Google Books.[24][25][26][27] I also believe she passes WP:CREATIVE as a director/producer in gay porn, given her GAYVN Trailblazer award and The Advocate noting her as an "adult entertainment legend".[28] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per GoldenAgeFan1's sources, and also per the three criteria of WP:NACTOR given her number of films (#1), following (#2), and inductee into the hall of fame of the most important body in the industry, AVN (#3). Britishfinance (talk) 15:21, 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 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Tauts[edit]

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

Never played professionally. Geschichte (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:32, 9 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maddy O'Reilly[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic actress. Sources are mostly adult ones, like XBIZ, which have been rejected as sufficient for establishing notability (eg in [29][30][31]), and coverage in RS is mostly non-existent, or at least not beyond a trivial mention. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ņikita Juhņevičs[edit]

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

Never played professionally. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are pretty WP:ROUTINE, can't see him passing GNG or NFooty. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:15, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Paige[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic actress. Page reads like a memorial. Coverage in RS is non-existent (aside from her death), and the coverage she does have was rejected in previous AfDs/DRVs including [32][33][34] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Under one form or another under WP:BIO1E. Coverage of her death does count and passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer. Not enough coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:GEOSCOPE. Death coverage looks to be confined to small, local newspapers. Routine coverage of a marginally-known person's death. Zaathras (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercury News is not a small paper, being the 5th largest in the United States. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that article is primarily focused on the death of Inkyo Volt Hwang. Paige is almost a B-story. Zaathras (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that analysis[35] but my point is that the coverage of their deaths should be on wikipedia in one form or another Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This person wasn't notable in life, nor after death, and the death itself isn't notable. Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTOBITUARY, this article doesn't qualify to continue within Wikipedia.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 23:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Paris[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic performer / gentlemen's club dancer. Coverage in RS is non-existent, and the coverage she does have was rejected in previous AfDs/DRVs including [36][37][38] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT without support from independent reliable sources. The article is an IMDb filmography embellished with poorly sourced claims. An independent search for RS coverage found nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources so that WP:BASIC is not passed, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 12 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. Withdrawn by nom, no support for deletion from other participants. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neil A. Doherty[edit]

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

I haven't found any irs with significant coverage. The subject works at Wharton School and everything I 've found was linked to it. Fails WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG is irrelevant; the notability guideline here is WP:PROF, and as the holder of an endowed chair at a major institution, he passes criterion C5. Additionally, as one would expect from the holder of an endowed chair, his citation record is good enough for C1. And with multiple in-depth published reviews of multiple books easily found by searching JSTOR [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] and probably more elsewhere for more thorough searches, he also passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. I haven't made a thorough search for book reviews that would count for WP:AUTHOR, but that's probably passed as well. XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I agree with the above mentioned on WP:PROF and gladly withdraw my nomination.Less Unless (talk) 08:43, 9 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 Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opa (roller coaster)[edit]

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

This is not a notable roller coaster by industry standards, nor does it warrant a standalone article. It already has sufficient coverage at Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park with better sourcing. No need to merge. This should ~~be deleted~~ simply be redirected. GoneIn60 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Mt. Olympus Water & Theme Park , where it is mentioned, per WP:ATD and useful redirect. (t · c) buidhe 09:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:13, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JustOrbit[edit]

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

Almost exclusively sourced to PR sites. The article itself reads like a PR piece. Fails NCORP and GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only promotional and trivial coverage -- Ab207 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional sources, promotional writing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, many of the sources look like press releases. Doesn't seem to have sufficient independant coverage, so not notable. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON... -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:17, 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 keep. Consensus is that the article subject is notable. Splitting can be discussed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Market in Electricity Directive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable, just not sourced. All EU directives have massive coverage in multiple languages in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and here are a few sources which might help [46][47][48][49][50]. Bingobro (Chat) 10:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator does not provide any support to document why he considers this to be 'non-notable' and therefore gives no real rational for delete. Directives issues by the European Parliament are the legal acts which detail the laws within the EU and (in my opinion) are generally going to notable on that basis alone (i.e. they are the fundamental laws of largest political and economic union in the world). Disregarding this there is still plenty of coverage on this particular topic to warrant notability. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]Tracland (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Liberalisation of the EU electricity market: Directive 2003/54". Practical Law Company.
^ Burkhalter, Cansu. Legal and Regulatory Framework of European Energy Markets.
^ Roggenjamp, Martha. European Energy Law Report I.
^ "Third Energy Package (Directive on electricity 2009/72/EC, repealing Directive 2003/54/EC and Directive on gas 2009/73/EC, repealing Directive 2003/55/EC)". Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
^ Electricity Trade in Europe: Review of Economic and Regulatory Challenges. Kluwer Law International B.V.
^ "INTRODUCING ENERGY SECTOR REGULATION IN GERMANY: A SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD OR THE DEATH KNELL FOR COMPETITION?" (PDF). Hogan Lovells.
^ Thomas, Steve. "The European Union Gas and Electricity Directives" (PDF).
^ Bohm, Judit. "COMPETITION IN ELECTRICITY MARKET ACCORDING TO THEREGULATION OF DIRECTIVE 2003/54/ EC" (PDF).
^ "Property Law and Free Movement of Capital Limits to the Implementation of the Ownership Unbundling in the Energy Sector" (PDF).

Comment There is no doubt that the article could be better sources and could be improved but this is not itself a reason to delete the article. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the topic to make the necessary improvements.Tracland (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split into separate articles on all of the three (yes, three - Directives 96/92/EC, 2003/54/EC and 2009/72/EC!) separate pieces of legislation which are discussed by this one single article. Some of those pieces of legislation may not be independently notable, but it is virtually impossible to make any sort of reasonable decision on whether the subject of the article is notable, when the subject of the article is so many different directives - and yet the infobox only talks about one of them! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 9 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. Tone 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

¡He matado a mi marido![edit]

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

Comedy film. Fails WP:COI because the article was written by the director, Francisco Lupini, a.k.a. Lupinif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Notability appears questionable also, but we can debate this if somebody unrelated to the subject recreates the article.

Lupini also wrote a blatantly promotional autobiography, Francisco Lupini, which I deleted per WP:G11, and another of his films was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dos Corazones. Sandstein 07:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 07:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PROMO. Also, there is a lack of coverage such as no critic's reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and no external reviews listed at IMDb so WP:GNG is not passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:54, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis Mazomenos[edit]

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

No notability, exaggerated claims, no reliable sources in the reference list. The article looks like a catalogue, while its large size is quite suspicious. One of the contributors appears to be closely related to the subject, so there might also be a conflict of interest. Vimeo and IMDB pages can be edited by the filmmaker himself, so they should not be considered as reliable sources. Glucken123 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Glucken123: User JohannesAugustin is actually Vassilis Mazomenos, and has been promoting himself and his work (both directly and indirectly) in several WPs [51]. Ιn el/WP he even tried to create an article about his father, but it was deleted for lacking notability (cf. el:Συζήτηση:Μίμης Μαζωμένος/Πρόταση διαγραφής). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @Glucken123: Prior to User JohannesAugustin it was the (finally indef. blocked) account Mazo1964, and just today, after pointing out the COI of User JohannesAugustin with his subject, another WP:SPA appeared with cross-wiki edits on Mazomenos, cf. global contr. of user Arcadia46. Note that in his article the new SPA or sock removed [52] what User JohannesAugustin=Mazomenos was writing about his father and family ("He [= V. Mazomenos] is the son of the fighter of the National Resistance Mimis Mazomenos. His grandmother's first cousin was Alexandros Papanastasiou, the first president of the Greek Republic in 1924. His grandfather Vasilios, was an immigrant in the United States, where most of his relatives live", which of course is no coincidence after the related remarks made in my commenet above. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS2. @Primefac: (on erasing a name) The user has publicly declared @ Commons his true identity [53], so please undo the hidding and restore my phrasing. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sould have thought of providing the diff while commenting. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLOWITUP. Actually, it's almost impossible to check the credibility of all the self-promotional claims made in the article by the contributing SPAs and puppet accounts since the beginning, to clear the content from what is not notable but written in a way to appear as such etc. So, better to have it re-created from the very start, as if it were a blank slate. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the text has been busy promoting himself all over Wikipedia. As one can see, the respective article in the Greek Wikipedia has been deleted through the AfD process on account of the subject's lack of notability, on top of which a blatant conflict of interest piled on. A clear case of an overkill of trivial sources (mostly routine listings) indicating nothing invoked to cover a distinct lack of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 06:22, 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. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cartography and Geographic Information Science[edit]

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

This seems to be a journal that does not have a high impact factor nor has significant or reliable coverage by sources (poor refs, see WP:GNG). The organization that it publishes on behalf of (Cartography and Geographic Information Society) has a poorly written stub for an article (authority control cites nothing). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: from WP:JOURNALCRIT Criterion 1.c:

If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article (...) Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. (...) 1.b) The most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. Being included in comprehensive (i.e. non-selective) indices and services like Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals are not sufficient to establish notability. 1.c) For the purpose of C1, having an impact factor assigned by Journal Citation Reports usually qualifies.

Besides the Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (after Social Sciences Citation Index), the journal is also indexed in Scopus. ~~[54]~~[55] With that you have inclusion in the two most selective citation indices. The comments about the smallness of the IF must be considered in light of the typical IF in the same journal category; I've just checked it, and it equals 1.8925 for the 83 Geography journals in the 2019 JCR, with 14 journals having IF smaller than 1 (IF are known to scale with the number of journals citing one another). Finally, the comments about the sponsoring organization having a stub article, normally we judge notability by sources external to Wikipedia. fgnievinski (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very compelling argument indeed, but what you are citing is unfortunately not Wikipedia policy. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the best we've got at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. fgnievinski (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current refs do not show notability, as ref 1 is for the The Cartography Journal, from the British Cartography Society, not Cartography and Geographic Information Science journal, which is also produced T and D. Ref 2 is useless, the archive copy has no information and the original is a page no longer available.fgnievinski says it is in Scopus [56], but this link is to the The Cartography Journal, not the journal discussed in the article. It does rate 2.31 on academic accelerator and is one of the three official journals of the International Cartography Association. I think with correct work to article it's a keep. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the links, apologies for the misplacement; my arguments remain the same. fgnievinski (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidstewartharvey: @Fgnievinski: It seems the I.F. varies according to ResearchGate it is 1.60. [57]

That's only the RG Impact Factor ("This value is calculated using ResearchGate data"), which should not be confused for the official JCR IF; for background, see Impact Factor#Counterfeit. fgnievinski (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, long-established journal which passes WP:NJOURNAL. Covered by both SCOPUS and JCR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well known and peer-reviewed journal from Taylor & Francis that focuses mainly Remote sensing and Cartography applications and research, clearly passes WP:NJOURNAL ~ Amkgp 💬 06:47, 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. Consensus is that the subject meets notability. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Gasiński[edit]

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

I have serious doubts that the subject is notable (though the article is not a WP:HOAX as tagged). There are also problems with WP:OR; the current article uses as sources some wikisource documents and a Usenet transcript. I did find two in-depth articles about him in the Polish media, one in a reliable newspaper (but paywalled and I don't have access to this: [58]), and one in a niche portal ([59]) that is also at least half-WP:INTERVIEW. Overall, I think this article suffers from serious OR issues that can merit major gutting/WP:TNT, and coupled with WP:NOTNEWS poor coverage otherwise with its related NBIO/GNG issues, IMHO this falls into the 'delete' zone. Thoughts? Ping User:Stuartyeates who added the hoax concern tag. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a whole ton of allegations about living people here that need really substantial foundations, which they lack. Without the allegations, there is no coverage of the subject, because the allegations appear to be the sole source of potential notability for the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We do not create articles on a subject based on hearsay and other extremely weak sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Must disagree about weak sourcing and hearsay. Sources include two printed books and articles in reputable media. Other reputable sources, just added: Rzeczpospolita[60][61][62], Gazeta Wyborcza[63][64][65][66][67], Dziennik[68][69][70][71], Wprost[72]. At least 13 different articles from reputable sources. User:Piotrus, A) what was described as an article from a niche portal is actually from the Polish licensed edition of The Times^[1]; nto, which is not exactly a niche portal but a local print newspaper, published it simultaneously because they share the same owner and some staff. B) there are no usenet transcripts as standalone sources - but a source is a book, and as a trip to a Polish library in not an option for everyone, I supplied an excerpt posted on a newsgroup (deleted it because it looks as a poor source indeed; still viewable in history); C) WP:OR the wikisource document also happens to be quoted in full in Wiernikowska's book, so again just another source for the book's content. WP:BIO, WP:NOTE Gasiński was the source of a major parliamentary scandal in Poland in 2001. It was when the populist Lepper, speaking as a vice-marshal of the House, accused five particular MPs and ministers of taking bribes. It did cost him his parliamentary immunity. Lepper touted Gasiński as his source. Note that the slander cases are mentioned in the Wiki article about Lepper. Sources that Gasiński was the source of Lepper's claims: [73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84](all mentioned earlier). All of that does not establish Gasiński's truthfulness - but his notability, yes. Also WP:BIO, WP:NOTE one of Gasiński's absurd claims - that Afghan militants, using a helicopter, visited Klewki - was confirmed. Not an "unfounded allegation" anymore. See the article. WP:CRIME Gasiński's 38-year sentence is absolutely extraordinary, without precedence, and therefore notable. And yes, even considering it's for multiple crimes. It was all for non-violent crimes and animal cruelty, and Poland does not sentence people to that long for non-violent crimes. Living people and allegations about them: Makowski - his version is included in the article, even in the introduction, with his book as a source. Skowroński - became a fugitive with an official wanted notice. Łyżwiński - his court case was described accurately, sourced it now. Olechowski, Szmajdziński, Piskorski (plus Tusk, Cimoszewicz) - they won slander cases and the article will mention it, we can still remove their names. Others are dead. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://polskatimes.pl/wiezien-niepokorny-przed-laty-byl-doradca-leppera/ar/10482990

Comment. Reviewing additional sources provided, it does seem that the subject may be notable; he did get written up in the news over several years, so it's not just a ONEVENT type of an issue. But I am still concerned about BLP issues/tone/focus, per User:Stuartyeates. PS. Ping User:Johnpacklambert the sources have been somewhat improved, the author has shown a good amount of coverage of the subject in mainstream Polish newspapers like Gazeta Wyborcza. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick recap of my arguments for keeping the article: notability: subject has been written about in at least 15 articles in the mainstream press (not tabloids) over the years, not just one time; also, he was the person behind a major parliamentary scandal; unusual sentence (WP:CRIME): the length of the sentence, 38 years for non-violent, non-drug crimes (and possibly animal cruelty), is unprecedented in Poland; also, the claim that Afghan militants in a helicopter had visited Klewki, pre-9/11, though sounding absurd, was later confirmed (and Gasiński's millionaire boss disappeared in the meantime). I believe the subject is, by far, notable enough to warrant an article. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable. Sources are OK. And subject meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major notable criminal case resolved in court.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:31, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberspies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only references provided are to the book itself. No substantive discussion in reliable independent published sources. Article was already deleted once. That it is back smells like promotion. A loose necktie (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A loose necktie: Page creator here! A couple things to point out:
1). The references are to published reviews in Kirkus Review and Publishers Weekly. The fact that the titles are the same as the book itself is because of the naming convention of the reviewing institutions. Per WP:NBOOK, book notability can be defined by (bold emphasis mine) "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." These are two reviews from established review sources, not self-published websites or author promotional material. I understand that there could be dispute over the establishment of notability off of only two published reviews, but as the current guidelines stand, the book has met sufficient notability criteria.
2). I can't access the previous version of this page that was deleted, but the previous AfD is from 2005, while this book was published in 2016, leading me to believe that the topics were different, despite the identical page name.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or want to discuss this further! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article are sufficient to satisfy WP:NB; other sources also exist (e.g. [85], [86]). As has already been pointed out, the nomination is almost entirely based on misapprehensions: the references are not to the book, and the article deleted in 2006 was on a different topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have added numerous reviews from notable authors to the article. It certainly warrants notability. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:56, 11 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. Tone 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendra Jai Narain[edit]

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

Tagged with questionable notability. Existing sourcing not great, many of the mentions passing at best. WP:BEFORE turned up little of use, thus I conclude he fails WP:GNG. Even if he is marginally notable, the page is still pretty promotional, and tagged with UDPE, thus I would lean towards deletion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is not there to show that he is a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the upe tag should be given much credence as it was added by a four edit ip on 28 June 2020 but dated August 2019 diff, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN Spiderone 08:42, 12 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 Slash's Snakepit. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Jackson (musician)[edit]

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

Has coverage, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG except as a member of one of the many bands he has been in, Slash's Snakepit, so redirect is the best WP:ATD. He has had a long career but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coveage of him per se to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slash's Snakepit. A few minor blog interviews are in context to his role in that band. Otherwise, I find no evidence of individual notability.ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slash's Snakepit. His brief association with that notable band merits a redirect if anyone happens to search for him. Otherwise this article serves no purpose except to list all of his other non-notable music endeavors, and he is only ever covered (briefly) in reliable media sources for his time in Slash's band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:24, 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 List of Dungeon Crawl Classics modules. The delete !voters did not advance any arguments against redirection, and it is mentioned in the target. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Iron Crypt of the Heretics[edit]

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

This article on a book and/or game has been sourced exclusively to a broken link to a low-quality source (that might be its inclusion in a list for a small award it was once nominated for but didn't win) for the past 13 years. A WP:BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, and Google Books, fails to find any reference to it. It, therefore, fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in a scan of Google. Redirect to List_of_Dungeon_Crawl_Classics_modules unless someone finds something GNG-interesting. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how it passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). It needs reviews or other significant coverage to get a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohmer, California[edit]

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

A small railroad station [87]; Durham's "Place Names of the San Francisco Bay Area" calls it a locality not a community. No other evidence of notabiity. Check out this photo to get a sense of how misleading GNIS can be. Glendoremus (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book, History of Contra Costa County (1940), calls it a community. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be nothing more than a small railroad station. If this ever was a community, it hasn't received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Magnolia677's find of appropriate sourcing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reminder that "community" is not our standard for automatic notability. A neighborhood, people who live on a road, or any arbitary collection of connected people can be a wt:community. Per WP:GEOLAND, this lacks coverage and recognition to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 01:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any evidence this was ever more than a rail station with a couple crossings. A "community" is sometimes a colloquialism for a collection of nearby houses/buildings, and calling something a community does not indicate the official recognition needed to get an automatic pass via WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete The only references I've found which deal with the site in any depth concern moving the station around in order to deal with grade crossings. They both make it clear that that the shed seen in the photo stood at an intersection which was gone by the 1950s, when the roads were reconfigured and the railroad bridge added; then the whole area was wiped clean in the late 1970s to make way for the highway interchange. No topo nor aerial view shows anything in the area except the shed, which disappears, and then a couple of other buildings appear and disappear; even the name disappears from the maps, until it is reinstated from GNIS. Given a couple of recent cases I've become less willing to accept off-hand references to a place as a "community" or even "town" without further narrative or the like which establishes town buildings or governance or the like, so I have to say that there's not enough evidence for this as a town; it's just a non-notable spot on the railroad. Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 8 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. Tone 14:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Khanna (actor)[edit]

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

non notable actor, lack of independent reliable resources. fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG DMySon 06:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 10 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. There is clear consensus that the person passes WP:NAUTHOR (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 07:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Lyons (theologian)[edit]

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

Worldcat shows his books are in libraries, and of the two publishers he has used, one is notable. He also teaches at a university.

However, there is nothing I can find to show he meets any criterion of WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.

I couldn't find an WP:ATD - the only other article he's mentioned in is William M. Greathouse, and that's just in Greathouse's bibliography, stating that they wrote two books together with no further info. Boleyn (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic and writer. Just because you publish books does not make you notable. Seems odd that kicking a ball in one game does make you notable but oh well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Publishing multiple works with multiple reviews does make one notable per WP:NAUTHOR. I've found four reviews so far: [88][89][90][91] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with his works reviewed in multiple scolarly reliable sources identified above so that deletion is no longer necessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet WP:AUTHOR. First review listed isn't about him (I don't think?) but the others are. That's enough. Hobit (talk) 06:14, 12 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. The German Wikipedia also has a couple useful sources. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 00:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beer hall[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion. The first cite is a food review. The 2nd and 3rd refer to a restaurant in St Louis. The fourth cite is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Begnome (talk • contribs)

Note I have refactored this a bit, and added it to the AfD list, but the formatting remains unusual as this was not done using Twinkle. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So obviously encyclopedic. I'd like to note this morning it had zero sources, and Begnome complained about it on IRC. Thus, four new sources got added today. Apparently that was not enough. I also note that just because something doesn't have enough sources on it does not mean it isn't notable. My cursory googling did turn up a lot of junk, such as ads for beer halls. But it also came up with things like the first citation, from travel guru Rick Steves, who dedicates an entire article to Bavarian beer halls. I suspect paper sources would have much more to offer us, but even google alone shows that it is notable. Also I have no idea what Begnome means that the fourth cite is a dead link, I added it just today! It is in German, yes, but clearly quite alive. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A notable topic that passes WP:GNG. See below for a sampling of available sources; more in addition to this are available.

References

"‘In their right place’ - Beer halls in Johannesburg, 1938–1962". African Studies. pp. 95–122.
"Beer Halls as a Focus for HIV Prevention Activities in Rural Zimbabwe". Sexually Transmitted Diseases. pp. 364–369.
"The Rise of Hitler as a Beer Hall Orator". The Review of Politics. pp. 244–256.

– Quote: "… His use of the Munich beer halls as auditoriums was in itself an unacknowledged legacy of the revolution … He observed the speakers carefully, noting the harsh hit-and-miss training that the beer halls provided. New candidates learned quickly or were hooted from the hall …"

"Beer Houses: An Indicator of Cultural Change in Taiwan". Journal of Cultural Geography. pp. 35–50.
The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. pp. 155–156.
Brewers, Beerhalls and Boycotts - A History of Liquor in South Africa. Ravan Press. 67 pages.
Alcohol, the Ematsheni and popular struggle in Durban : the origins of the beer hall in South Africa, 1902-08. Centre for African Studies, University of Cape Town.
"The central beer hall as social and municipal infrastructure in twentieth century Pietermaritzburg". Journal of the Historical Association of South-Africa. pp. 75–91.
Additional sources are available in the Beer Hall Boycott article, which focuses upon a female-led national campaign of boycotting municipal beer halls in South Africa.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Obviously notable. Apart from the sources listed by NA above, notice that there's an equivalent article in 10 other Wikipedias. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, sourcing listed by Northamerica1000 clearly indicate notability, as do other articles like " The German Beer Hall as Place of Cultural Performance", Whelan, Debbie (2015). "eMatsheni: The central beer hall as social and municipal infrastructure in twentieth century Pietermaritzburg". Historia (Three Rivers) (0018-229X), 60 (1), p. 75., and more. Further, a valid rationale for deletion is not presented: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the identified sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, sourcing listed by Northamerica1000 clearly indicate notability. AFD not cleanup. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Reliable sources have been found proving it passes the general notability guidelines, and the article has been massively expanded since the time it was nominated for deletion. Also click Google news at the top of the AFD, and the first page of results has a New York Times article discussing first a single Beer Hall, then the Beer Hall in general. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/world/europe/germany-beer-halls.html Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion. Dream Focus 15:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep obviously a WP:BEFORE fail. WP:TROUT to nominator Lightburst (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Notable topic. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish people would actually improve the article rather than nominating it for deletion, then we do this whole song and dance each time... Regardless, it now appears fully sourced. Keep. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kvindesland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

We usually keep surname pages, but in this case, I couldn't establish it meeting WP:GNG (surname pages are articles rather than disambiguation pages, so are subject to the same criteria as articles, although they are often poorly formed.)

It doesn't even function, as many surname articles do, like a disambiguation page too, as there are no notable people of this name.

Was previously deleted, in 2004 AfD, but that was a long time ago. A possible WP:ATD is to Tysvær#Geography. My concern though, is that the information in that article concerning this surname is unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no interest for Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only useful if there are notable people of that surname. Possibly could be moved to Wiktionary? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:02, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Institution for Field Research Expeditions[edit]

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

It exists and has some coverage, mainly in guides and brochures explaining different volunteering opportunities. I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG.

If kept, it'll need to be edited closely - one WP:SPI was banned on this for their username being clear they worked in this industry, and it was created by a different WP:SPI, and reads as if that was promotion.

As one of those that has been waiting longest in CAT:NN's 12 year backlog, I hope we can now get it resolved, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability, fails the GNG. There's been ample time to add such sources if they existed. Ravenswing 11:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:08, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetropolitan (album)[edit]

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

Appears to have reviews in 'Zero' and 'Vision Music' - I have no idea if these count as reliable sources, but these have articles in German and Swedish Wikipedia respectively, though this album has no other WP articles. There is no real assertion of notability, except that it was released internationally and on a probably notable record label. WP:ATD is redirect to War from a Harlots Mouth, but that is also currently at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the rationale for deletion doesn't make any sense. The album has reviews, but the sources might not be reliable, but maybe they are, and anyway the magazines have articles in other Wikipedias. What? "No real assertion of notability" is meaningless per WP:ASSERTN, but if it did mean something, it would be undercut by the next clause, which offers two potential assertions of notability. If you're really this unsure about whether you should nominate this for deletion, then please don't, for fear of a) wasting other volunteers' time, and b) deleting an article on a potentially notable subject. Just leave it alone and move on to the next one. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- user:Toughpigs, thanks for contributing to the AfD. I believe it is non-notable, hence bringing it to AfD. However, I think when nominating it's important to show what I have found that may contribute towards notability, so other people can see the research I have done and form their own opinion, and I am trying to do this more. I do this because I'm not here trying to 'win' but to acknowledge any uncertainties, however small, and to help the community come to a consensus on this. My opinion is that this should be deleted. Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources from Visions and Zero are reliable. I found some more reliable sources which talk about the album: Metal Temple, Metal Storm, Metal Rage, Sputnik Music, The PRP and Metal Injection. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Astig's sources (at least, the reliable ones). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:28, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Bihari[edit]

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

I came across this at new page review. The subject appears to be famous mainly for appearing in a tv dating show, but the article about that show (MTV Splitsvilla) does not have blue links to any other contestants. Of the sources provided the Times of India mentions him only on a list of contestants. None of the other sources is listed at WP:RSP and none look reliable to me. Unless anyone knows better about these sources, or has others to contribute, the subject isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable dating show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is otherwise no coverage of this person beyond passing mentions being a contestant on Spitsvilla. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 03:03, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aurant, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a community: it is a rail yard and at one time, a station, sitting in the middle of extremely urbanized greater LA just east of Alhambra. I have not been able to determine when the yard was built or when the name was applied to the station/yard, but I can find no reference to it as a town or even as a locale. We have a lot more experience with examining these rail locations than on the last discussion, and a better insight into GNIS's location classification flaws. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another example of GNIS's unreliability when it comes to identifying communities. This is (or was) a railroad facility and not a community or settlement. There is no evidence that it passes basic notability guidelines. Glendoremus (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-produced junk that's had false information for the last decade. Calliopejen1 had it right a couple years ago. Good news Yilloslime. WP:GNIS listings do not make a place notable. Reywas92^Talk 06:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my last nomination and comments there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rail yard, not a settlement. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 9 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) (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biplob[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hatchens, According to your userpage language babel, you do not seem to read Bengali. How did you evaluate the references and came to a conclusion that it fails WP:GNG? ~ Nahid ^Talk 12:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear NahidSultan. You should be aware there are some tools like Google Translator which helps in these kinda situations. Instead of focusing on my language skills, kindly feel free to discuss this AfD and help in deriving required consensus. -Hatchens (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know about machine translators and also know that they produce very very poor translation from bn to en. Now, there is a daily star (most circulated English daily in Bangladesh) in depth coverage and it mentions him as iconic vocal, veteran artiste etc. The reason I asked how you evaluated because there are also in depth coverage in Prothom Alo (second most circulated daily) here and here (along with the band). IMO, this is a poor judgement- nominating articles for deletion based on google translation when most of the sources are in a foreign language. Best, ~ Nahid ^Talk 13:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Of the five references, three (The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, Manabzamin) are significant coverage solely focused on the singer. The singer has also released several albums independent of the band. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mr. Zayeem has shown us good resources to verify the subject's significance. - Julian ray 789 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passing W. P GNG, but some improvement is still neededMajun e Baqi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is mostly voted by SPAs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 03:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject passes WP:GNG as per Nahid's sources. Java Hurricane 06:29, 8 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Steadham[edit]

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

The subject of this article is not notable. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 15:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from [92], all the sources I can find are either non-significant coverage, interviews, or user generated/shop listings. Danski454 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My !vote is unchanged by the added sources, as aside from the Issuu and www.familymediasite.com, none are significant coverege. The Issuu source is primary and www.familymediasite.com doesn't inspire confidence in its reliability. Danski454 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I respectfully disagree. Steve Steadham is a skateboarding pioneer and legend. As a member of the Bones Birgade, Steadham was part of the most well known skate team in skateboarding history. Additionally, he has gone on to found multiple companies and have a career a as professional musician. I added additional sources.--Wil540 art (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Based on WP:BASIC a lot of small refs show he was once notable, and you don't lose notability.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:20, 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 08:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 03:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either unreliable, primary or passing mentions without going into significant coverage. Fails GNG and NBIO. Java Hurricane 06:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree, to quote Davidstewartharvey: "Based on WP:BASIC a lot of small refs show he was once notable, and you don't lose notability." --Wil540 art (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You only vote once, Wil540 art. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 11 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo Secolo Di Ritornelli[edit]

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

Self-published book by non-notable author (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Cilio)×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Doesn't appear to meet any of the notability criteria in WP:NBOOK. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and read carefully It's ABSOLUTELY not self-published, miss Merynancy should get herself a life and stop taking out here her frustrations... Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy. Please get her a life, she needs it. Delete her please, it's obvious she has history with the author and just wants revenge. If an author with 110k followers on Facebook and 100k on Instagram is non-notable, who else is? Please give up with this and go get lives. Torsy
110k Facebook likes and yet his likes haven't made it to the three digits on any of his recent posts? Hmm. I don't know the author personally nor did I know about him before the umpneenth attempt to spam him on it.wiki, which resulted in the indefinite salting of his page. I also wouldn't take the claim that "Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy" seriously, as you also wrongfully claimed the unofficial music chart made up by this man is the "Italian primary popularity chart" (not to mention the fact that this book is self-published emerged on the AfD on it.wiki). ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, not sure "Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy", but for sure it is an important and authoritative publisher with 50 years of history and important authors in its portfolio. More importantly, the three sources in the article (which include Sette and Adnkronos) are reliable and seems to be the bare minimum to pass GNG. Probably the page was created as part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden, but at least this one seems notable in its own. --151.74.138.45 (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Said wall garden was actually rejected and salted from it.wiki because of persistent spam and non-notability, I really don't think en.wiki should be the dumpster of articles the other wikis shunned for all the right reasons. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally agree with 151.74.138.45, Arcana is famous in Italy, Marynancy has history with the author and made it personal. She invented the fact that the book is self-published, while it is under contract with Arcana. Please ban her, she is not able to judge notability since she makes it personal. 46.28.25.172 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Strike logged out multiple votes. Java Hurricane 06:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same thing all over from different IPs won't help your cause. Would you mind logging in, User:Torsellino? ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 13:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing I can find to indicate this book meets WP:NBOOK or the WP:GNG. Despite the determined efforts to get articles on this subject and his works onto Wikipedia, the fact remains that Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, no reviews found for this book, what is telling is, according to WorldCat, the number of libraries that hold this book is one. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? It’s full of reviews, are you able to read or are you full of envy just like miss mary “who cares” nancy??? Please stop this discussion, it’s censorship. Wikipedia is censorship at its best... The only criteria you use are envy and anger for being nobodies and wannabes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.7.209 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 02:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Java Hurricane 06:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has reviews on SETTE (Corriere della Sera) and interviews on 4 national radios (m2o, Radio Montecarlo, Radio Capital and the most important one, RTL). If this is not relevant what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.165.166 (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Strike logged out multiple votes. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 08:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time you've said the same thing. No need to repeat your point. This IP is User:Torsellino, by the way. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 16:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please go on with your life if you have one. Live your life, don’t try to sabotate the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.211.29 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYBODY PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Stop deleting the “keeps”! This is not Marynancypedia! Ban that user, she has history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.159.58.110 (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to remove the strikethroughs, you should probably remove the </s> part at the end as well as the <s> part at the start. I've reinstated them because they're there to indicate the belief that these are multiple comments from the same person but different IP addresses. Note that nobody is deleting anything: it's perfectly possible for the closing admin to read the struck comments if they so choose. (PS "She has history" could be read as casting aspersions, which isn't particularly welcome. To quote the Arbitration Committee (from the page just linked), "Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page.") YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man, “casting aspersions” is exacty what Marynancy is doing, telling a lot of lies for personal reasons. This is it by me. Do what you want but censorship is not the right way to act, Wikipedia is under the spotlight and a lot of users are unhappy about the way you manage things. Totally unknown people are accepted because they are linked to admins, while people who deserve a page are rejected because they are not liked by admins. The only interesting comment is “weak keep” one: Weak Keep, not sure "Arcana Edizioni is the number 1 music book publisher in Italy", but for sure it is an important and authoritative publisher with 50 years of history and important authors in its portfolio. More importantly, the three sources in the article (which include Sette and Adnkronos) are reliable and seems to be the bare minimum to pass GNG. Probably the page was created as part of a Wikipedia:Walled garden, but at least this one seems notable in its own. --151.74.138.45 (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.169.167 (talk) [reply]

Doesn't change the fact that this article, along with the other two articles related to this author, was deleted and salted from it.wiki for spamming and non-notability. Not every book published on a notable publishing company is automatically notable. As I said before, en.wiki isn't the dumpster of the articles rejected by the other wikis, and this clear attempt of self-promotion should have no place in here. The fact that the original author has to resort to personal attacks from IP in order to defend his article should say it all! ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 09:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I've reinstated them because they're there to indicate the belief that these are multiple comments from the same person but different IP addresses." Dear User:YorkshireLad, I've seen that the IPs are from Catania, Milan and Aosta. If you find a map you will notice the three towns are far from each other and, most of all, you will realize that the author is known all over Italy. That's why strikethroughs are totally unfounded as well as Marynancy's comments, that I repeat are influenced by personal reasons. You should ban bad admins instead of good entries. By the way this is my last message, the Keeps are very well explained while the Deletes are unfounded, so use your brain and be METICULOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.238.63.200 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave it un-struck (I don't believe it should be, but I don't want to get into an edit war). For the record, though: as far as I can tell, nobody who's commented on this page is an admin on the English Wikipedia, so "banning admins" has no relevance to this discussion. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @YorkshireLad: but those comments should be struck for two reasons: it's clearly either the same person or a group of people with a blatant conflict of interest, and the "reasonings" are actually personal attacks directed against me due to the lack of arguments to keep this spammed mess that's only here because we repeatedly rejected it from it.wiki. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 10:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merynancy, I think you're preaching to the converted! I'm sorry, my words weren't very clear: but I agree in principle that the comments should be struck. I just didn't think it was worth getting into an edit war over when the closing admin will (presumably) read this discussion upon closure (presumably sometime today) and see exactly what's going on. If you or anyone else wanted to reinstate the strikethroughs, I wouldn't revert that either. I actually drafted a longer reply to the most recent IP pointing out that it was unlikely that there was an uncoordinated mass movement of people popping up to defend an article with 239 views in the last month, and that IP geolocations are incredibly easy to fake should one wish to, so they don't really prove anything. I decided not to post it, per WP:DFTT. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:10, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Jazz Musician[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 02:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, non notable film with no indication as to why it would justify its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 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 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lights Below EP[edit]

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

Non notable EP from a short lived, non notable band. No significant coverage for this EP was found. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 02:53, 8 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 Dragonlance Chronicles. The keep votes are not presenting a very strong argument because consensus can change, and this discussion was better attended than the last one. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Lance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is mostly unsourced. Granted, we try to assess potential, but the only sources that can be found are non-independent sources like the fiction itself, or the publisher and their licensees. Needs significant coverage in reliable third party sources in order to meet the general notability guideline and write a verifiable article that's not just WP:PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragonlance Chronicles. As I stated in the previous AFD, this is just a summary of the complete plot of the that trilogy of books, combined into one massive article. Each of the books in the trilogy already have their own articles, each with their own extensive plot summaries, that contain all of the plot information that is here, making this WP:REDUNDANT. Its a plausible search term, though, and redirecting to the main article for the trilogy, which serves as a hub to the individual articles on the three books, would be the best way to direct people to the relevant information. Rorshacma (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Editors might also want to take a look at a similar AFD that closed recently, regarding the Galactic Civil War. It was a very similar case, where it was an article that just summarized the overall plot of the original Star Wars trilogy, and was deemed a WP:CONTENTFORK of that. Rorshacma (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: This was up for AfD seven months ago, and closed as Keep. A merge was suggested that didn't happen. I understand Rorshacma's point about this being a plot summary that's redundant with the book articles, but I thought it was generally understood that you shouldn't follow a Keep close with another nomination for deletion six months later. Shooterwalker didn't start a talk page conversation, nominate for a merge, or make any edits to any of the relevant pages; they just went straight for a deletion nomination. I don't understand the logic of that. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously insufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG Chetsford (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the book series, where this should be discussed as it is the main plot summary for them. Independently this topic has no notability per NFICTION/GNG. ==_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragonlance Chronicles, I might have some reservations if the previous AfD gave any good points at all, but it does not. Also, six months is the generally accepted waiting period after an AfD, seven months is a perfectly fine time to wait. Article clearly fails GNG and WP:PLOT, since it is sourced entirely to primary sources and is described from an entirely in-universe point of view. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep I am not strongly opposed to a merge in the view of the contentfork argument, but completely agree with Toughpigs that this AfD following the last one is not a good way to go about it. Why not do the merge discussion or starting the work of a merge, but rather ignore the sentence pronounced in the last AfD and strive for elemination of content? (By the way, in it's current state it is almost, but not completely source to primary sources.) Daranios (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Dragonlance Chronicles per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per the consensus above and from the previous AFD. Also a procedural comment that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we shouldn't throw up procedural hurdles when editors are discussing a consensual compromise. This article is almost completely sourced to primary sources and we see a solution that is compatible with WP:ATD. Jontesta (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragonlance Chronicles per above. I see the arguments about process. But this article is redundant with the plot summary of the trilogy, and has no notability of its own. Archrogue (talk) 18:42, 12 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 keep. BD2412 T 16:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chrismukkah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A lot of this is unsourced or talking vaguely about Jews celebrating Christmas. There's otherwise insignificant coverage about the word from an episode in The O.C. (season 1). Insufficient coverage to write an encyclopedic article that meets the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found the following sources, which could be used to expand and verify the article. All of them are either books from well-recognized university presses or news stories from well-recognized organizations. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan, Dana Evan (2011). "Facing the Collapse of the Intermarriage Stigma". Contemporary American Judaism: Transformation and Renewal. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 161–205. ISBN 978-0-231-13729-4.
Mehta, Samira K. (2018-03-13). "Chrismukkah: Millennial Multiculturalism". Beyond Chrismukkah: The Christian-Jewish Interfaith Family in the United States. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-1-4696-3637-5.
Plaut, Joshua Eli (2012). "Chrismukkah and Festivus: Holidays for the Rest of Us". A Kosher Christmas: 'Tis the Season to be Jewish. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. pp. 137–162. ISBN 978-0-8135-5380-1.
Prichep, Deena (2016-12-24). "'Chrismukkah': Interfaith Families Negotiate A Christmas-Hanukkah Combination". National Public Radio. Retrieved 2020-07-08.
Wolf, Rachel (2019-12-24). "Chrismukkah: When Hanukkah and Christmas come together". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2020-07-08.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This already is an encyclopedic article. The History section is entirely real-world information about the writing and production of the show, and the influence of the concept. There are decent references in the article already, and then obviously AleatoryPondering has identified more. I don't understand the thinking behind the nomination. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Tons of available significant coverage: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]. Nominator clearly did not do WP:BEFORE (plus it already passed a previous AfD with flying colors) and this is simply an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's clearly very significant coverage about the day, in addition to the above coverage, there are mentions in major sources like The Economist, Nathenson, Cary. "Chrismukkah as Happy Ending?: The Weihnukka Exhibition at the Jewish Museum Berlin as German-Jewish Integration Fantasy." Journal of Jewish Identities, vol. 6 no. 1, 2013, p. 57-69. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/jji.2013.0005., not to mention a spate of coverage in newspapers as the holiday comes around pretty much every year. This level of sourcing clearly indicates a pass of WP:GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the level of coverage meets WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Meets the general notability guidelines. Nominator once again refuses to follow WP:BEFORE. Just click the Google news search for it and look through the results. Dream Focus 14:48, 10 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 keep. BD2412 T 16:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Hawkins Day[edit]

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

Not independently notable of the fiction itself, and otherwise a dictionary definition. There is insufficient third party coverage to make a stand-alone notable article, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The comic strip started a real-world annual tradition that was covered by the press for decades. I've found coverage here:
- "Some Fun Is On the Way — Sadie Hawkins Day Is Near", The Pittsburgh Press (Oct 19, 1940)
- "On Your Marks, Girls! Sadie Hawkins Day Is Nov. 9", The Jackson Clarion-Ledger (Oct 20, 1946)
- "Al Capp Tells How to Conduct a 'Sadie Hawkins Day'" by Paul F. Kneeland, The Boston Sunday Globe (Nov 6, 1949)
- "Carbon Carbonettes to Sponsor Annual Sadie Hawkins Day Events Tomorrow", The Price Sun-Advocate (Nov 23, 1950)
- "Sadie Hawkins Day comes and goes: Tradition used to empower women diminishes as society changes" by Matt Katz, The Camden Courier-Post (Feb 26, 2004)

I'll work on expanding the article. For now, I believe that these sources demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should definitely be expanded to have coverage of the event(s) that became real-world traditions, but there do seem to be quite a number of sources that discuss the phenomenon. I suggest that we might want to merge Sadie Hawkins dance here, as well, to cover the entire breadth of the topic. Rorshacma (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a lot of overlap between the two; I agree that merging Sadie Hawkins dance into this article makes sense. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is abundant significant coverage (just click on the links at the top of this page). Nominator clearly did not do WP:BEFORE. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A fictional element that took on life in the real world and has had enduring cultural significance; 80 years later, it is still being "celebrated". edited to add: I just took a look at the shape the article was in when it was nominated, and it was an unsourced and rather sad article. However, a proper WP:BEFORE would have shown the notability. Good work by Toughpigs improving it. Schazjmd (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep as this is clearly notable per Toughpigs, as well as a simple WP:BEFORE as stated by Schazjmd. Just the news and books links provided for Google searches turn up a plethora of information from tabloids to local press to national pop culture (People, Seventeen) all the way up to respected publications such as The Atlantic, Time, and The New York Times. I agree that a merge of some sort may not be a bad idea, but deciding the best spot to merge into doesn't need to hold up this AfD. (I would argue they should come into this article, though.) -2pou (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I click Google news and the first results I see Seventeen magazine has an article titled What Even is a Sadie Hawkins Dance and Where Did It Come From? [98] and People magazine has Celebrate the History of Sadie Hawkins Day – in Real Life and on TV [99]. Please just search for references before nominating anything for deletion in the future. Dream Focus 00:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the above arguments. Artw (talk) 05:46, 10 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 Aurelian. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulpius Crinitus[edit]

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

Deletion proposed as I don't think this can meet WP:NOTABILITY if the existence of the subject is highly dubious and this is the main content of the article. Zakhx150 (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aurelian. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to have an article on a subject whose very existence is doubted without deep sourcing to show that it is a significant subject even if not real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aurelian; not enough to merit a standalone article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aurelian. Some useful cites for one attempt to provide a noble background. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AurelianGizzyCatBella 🍁 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think the nom has been spooked by the statements doubting his existence. That the doubt is quoted by the writer in ref1, who proceeds to talk about him as a real person. He does not say why others expressed doubt. Ref4 quotes a number of mentions of him in classical authors, which point to him being a real person. I can see that there might be doubt as to the veracity of some of the information about him, but that is a matter of historical interpretation. I must oppose merging him to Aurelian, as the article on that emperor is of appropriate length and would be unbalanced by adding material on his alleged adoptive father. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note following @Peterkingiron:'s comment. The link on ref 4 is to a section of the Historia Augusta which is, frankly, problematic. It also wishes to compare this to a text called Firm 3.4. As a classicist I have absolutely no idea what text that is actually referring to - the standard abbreviations used in Classics (here) doesn't list a Firm, but a Firm. Mat, which is a 4th century astrological text by Julius Firmicus Maternus. The footnote 37 referenced in the actual translation here cited itself offers little support for Crinitus: "Mentioned also in c. xxxviii.2‑3, but otherwise unknown. It is probably true that under Valerian Aurelian was engaged in the defence of Thrace against the Goths, but the episode as developed in the following chapters, with the account of Valerian's audience at Constantinople, the adoption of Aurelian and his appointment to the consulship, all embellished with (p213)fabricated "documents," must be considered an invention of the author's." Also I offer a general agreement to oppose the merger with Aurelian as this would be tangential to that article at best. Zakhx150 (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those advocating a merge have not identified what content, if any, is suitable for merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 8 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norvell, California[edit]

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

Another isolated siding, this time at the eastern edge of the Norvell Flats, from which both it and Lake Norvell (which is adjacent to the track, just to the north) evidently take their names. It was removed sometime in the late 1970s-'80s and never seems to have had much around it: the early topos show a pair of trackside buildings just past the north end of the siding, but that's it. I can't find any significant reference to the spot as a point on the railroad except the usual regulatory chaff, and none at all to it as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another railroad siding mislabeled as a community. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 10 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) Kj cheetham (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Machat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Article is almost entirely sourced on Amazon pages. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper references and sources are available. External links come out of a single source. Seems to be a promotional. Ashishkafle (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough independent sources provided now including from the Smithsonian Institute, the Edwards Air Force base's page and L.A. Times prove his notability. Plus he has collaborated on many books and published two himself! I mean if that's not enough...Antonio Daddy of Many Martin (aha) 19:24, 21 June, 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @AntonioMartin: Two books? I've published over two dozen....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Perhaps you, my esteemed friend, should have an article written about as well!..:)Antonio GTA5 Player Martin (aha) 05:42, 22 June, 2020 (UTC)
Keep, but shorten Keep the notable, verifiable, and unique-to-know content. Parts such as paintings of airplanes can either be put at the 'Personal life' section, or wiped out. References should also be accurate and not Amazon pages, as well as not reusing in the same sentence. User:Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 11:23, 26 June, 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 8 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)} 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Hyo-jun[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article review process. No indication of wp:notability under either wp:GNG or the SNG. I looked at (but did not translate) all of the references. There appears to be no GNG-suitable coverage of him. The only medium length coverage of him appears to be a press release repeated verbatim 3 times. This is evidenced in the article having essentially no text content. Of the tv shows listed, 2 have articles and he is not listed as starring in either of them. He is on secondary lists at those articles, one amongst ~44 other names, the other amongst approx 18 names. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh you mean the Switch and Hit the Top. I actually saw it on his official page of agent, it was all in korean so i had to translated perhaps some got mistranslated, i will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.96.130 (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 i added his official company page, it can be found on the external links and i did some changes to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.96.130 (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 59.103.96.130. The main question is whether or not the subject fulfills Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on them. There are two ways to do this. One is to establish (with suitable sources) that they fulfill one of the special criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) (which I don't think that he does), the other is to fulfill the coverage-in-sources requirement at WP:GNG which basically requires substantial in-depth coverage of him in independent published sources. So, in my opinion, if you wish to advocate/work for retention of this article, you should find two independent sources (maybe one will do) which cover him in depth. And it should be written by the source, not copying bio information provided by the subject. If you feel that such is already included in your sources, you should point that out with specifics. Alternatively you could look for and add such coverage/sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added a source from seoul economy and news1 his interviews can you check it, if it's alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.96.130 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, better sourcing is required to prove that this individual is deserving of having a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katemeshi101 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I looked at the additional sources that were provided, they still appear to be interviews, so still only providing 'bio information provided by the subject', as North8000 says. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 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. Especially given the comment from an editor who can check sources in Mandarin. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jiameng Pass[edit]

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

There are insufficient reliable third party sources with substantial coverage to create a notable article that would pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Events are already proportionately described in other articles about the fiction itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If there are sources they are likely in Chinese and beyond the ability of most of us to judge. For now, given what I see (which is next to nothing), per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, I can't recommend keeping this, as it fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would delete it. The Battle of Jiameng Pass is just a fictional battle in Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Unless we can get a hand from a Chinese speaking users to help us with a sources..? GizzyCatBella🍁 12:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Review Sources - I will check the sources because I can speak and read Mandarin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdub 604 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The 2 sources in the article for Ma Chao's defection to Zhang Lu under Historicity are in the Records of The 3 Kingdoms volume 36. The translation of the Ma Chao section of the record, are correct. So, the 2 sources are both good. But, there are no sources for the actual battle, background, and Aftermath. Even though both of the sources are correct, there just aren't enough sources for the article. I say that this article needs to be deleted. --Bdub 604 (talk) 18:12, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Shearer[edit]

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

Unable to find any in-depth coverage of this actor. There's a mention of him in Hugh Laurie: The Biography but it's just that - a mention. TV-Guide has a listing of his credits as does https://www.comedy.co.uk/ but nothing in-depth, failing WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be surprised if this was deleted, he has done a lot of television work, there must be some useful sources to use. Govvy (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find no sources where he's the main topic. In the sources I could find, he's only mentioned in passing with very few details of him provided. Suonii180 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough coverage , not notable Alex-h (talk) 14:21, 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.

[1] "Is BL Santhosh The new 'Modi' of Karnataka?". Deccan Chronicle. 1 September 2019. Retrieved 10 July 2020.

[2] "K'taka's BL Santhosh elevated to BJP General Secretary, party's 2nd most powerful role". The News Minute. July 15, 2019. Retrieved May 1, 2020.

[3] Deepa Balakrishnan (July 16, 2019). "Why BJP Promotion For RSS Loyalist BL Santhosh Should Have Yeddyurappa Looking Over His Shoulder". News 18. Retrieved May 1, 2020.

[4] "How BL Santhosh is redefining role of RSS pointsman in BJP under Amit Shah". Rohini Swamy. ThePrint. 9 January 2020. Retrieved 10 July 2020.

[5] ManuAiyappa Kanathanda (May 3, 2017). "Why BL Santhosh can't be the Yogi Adityanath of Karnataka". timesofindia.com. Bangaluru: Times of India. Retrieved 10 July 2020.

[6] Bhaskar Hegde (Jan 27, 2017). "BL Santhosh behind the rebellion in Karnataka BJP?". deccanchronicle.com. Bangaluru: Deccan Chronicle. Retrieved 10 July 2020.

[7] "Liberalisation of the EU electricity market: Directive 2003/54". Practical Law Company.

[8] Burkhalter, Cansu. Legal and Regulatory Framework of European Energy Markets.

[9] Roggenjamp, Martha. European Energy Law Report I.

[10] "Third Energy Package (Directive on electricity 2009/72/EC, repealing Directive 2003/54/EC and Directive on gas 2009/73/EC, repealing Directive 2003/55/EC)". Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

[11] Electricity Trade in Europe: Review of Economic and Regulatory Challenges. Kluwer Law International B.V.

[12] "INTRODUCING ENERGY SECTOR REGULATION IN GERMANY: A SIGNIFICANT STEP FORWARD OR THE DEATH KNELL FOR COMPETITION?" (PDF). Hogan Lovells.

[13] Thomas, Steve. "The European Union Gas and Electricity Directives" (PDF).

[14] Bohm, Judit. "COMPETITION IN ELECTRICITY MARKET ACCORDING TO THEREGULATION OF DIRECTIVE 2003/54/ EC" (PDF).

[15] "Property Law and Free Movement of Capital Limits to the Implementation of the Ownership Unbundling in the Energy Sector" (PDF).

[16] ttps://polskatimes.pl/wiezien-niepokorny-przed-laty-byl-doradca-leppera/ar/10482990

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]