Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 March	25 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Adler[edit]

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

Screenwriter of uncertain notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The figure seems notable. Mccapra, did you follow WP:BEFORE in seeking sources outside of Wikipedia? I found the following in a few minutes:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting. Broadwayworld.com I must admit I’d overlooked and I agree it does show notability. The Baltimore Sun shows in my search but is blocked in the UK. Hollywoodreporter.com doesn’t show in my search. He’s named in the headline which is a strong plus, but only very briefly mentioned in the article. Motionpicture.org does show in my search, but it’s an interview with him rather than a source about him. Deadline.com I get and it may demonstrate notability but it looks like a rehashed press release to me. M.mid-day.com I don’t get in my search results. It may demonstrate notability but is mostly an interview about him. Apart from these I see one piece in an Indian outlet I’ve never heard of before and nothing else that looks like reliable independent sourcing. So yes, despite overlooking one of the sources you highlight, to me notability seems doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Adler has written notable films with Wikipedia pages, and Erik has shown that there are multiple independent reliable sources discussing Adler and his career. The existing article is badly written and has no sources, but WP:ARTN says that notability is unaffected by the state of the current article; notability is determined by whether sources exist that could be used to improve the article. I don't know what Mccapra means by "shows in my search" and "I don't get in my search results", but it seems like pointless nitpicking of perfectly adequate sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I mean is that google does not show these results when I search, so until Erik shared them, I could not see them. Google does not show the same results for everyone. My comment was in response to his querying whether I had looked for sources. Mccapra (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above, as I've incorporated the sources I found and increased the article about 790% in size. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with an expansion based on multiple reliable sources coverage which shows WP:BASIC is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG and sources exist. Please do a WP:BEFORE. KartikeyaS (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources now added to article; meets GNG. ~riley (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 31 March 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 Cherokee County School District (Georgia). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free Home Elementary[edit]

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

Elementary schools are rarely notable under WP:NSCHOOL. No evidence of secondary sources that would indicate this as a notable school. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Cherokee County School District (Georgia), per WP:ATD and longstanding practice. John from Idegon (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per John from Idegon, but noting there are sources and material in this article worth merging, rather than losing by redirecting only. School district articles can/should be developed to provide tabular or other substantial info, rather than just naming the elementary schools. --Doncram (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing redirect as suggested by John from Idegon. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - non-notable. ~riley (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per usual WP:OUTCOMES and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 13:14, 31 March 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) 05:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Knolls, Arizona[edit]

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

Non-notable mobile home park; fails WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 21:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN trailer park, one of thousands. GNIS source is FIPS, another database. MB 01:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill trailer park, not a distinct populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. ~riley (talk) 07:39, 31 March 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) 05:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Velda Rose Estates, Arizona[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision, fails WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 21:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:MILL subdivision of about 150 homes, just a tiny neighborhood in Mesa. No notability of the name. MB 01:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subdivision is not a distinct populated place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. ~riley (talk) 07:39, 31 March 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 Nomination withdrawn. StarM 20:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Farver[edit]

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

~~Curator and gallery director of uncertain notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nomination[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as article creator). As a bit of context, this article was made at the Wikimedia meetup at the Metropolitan Museum of Art where the whole goal was to create articles on underrepresented topics. Farver was a woman in red in the art realm who did receive some coverage upon her death, but didn't seem to merit tons of coverage during her life. I'll admit that obituaries are not ideal sources and the topic is somewhat borderline, currently. That said, there are still reliable sources that establish notability here, she published or co-published several works, and I'm sure that if anybody ever decides to expand articles on, say, past Whitney Biennials (which do have coverage, albeit in snooty art journals and the like), they'd also find more coverage on Farver, so there's room for expansion. If she's of borderline notability, it is still firmly on the keepable side of the border - the arts equivalent of an assistant manager of an MLB baseball team for 5 years who also coached some clubs in the minors. Someone like that would easily make notability (see all the 500+ entries of Category:Minor league baseball coaches), even if they have a short article. SnowFire (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article hasn't even been through NPP yet. Can we slow down a bit and perhaps give it a chance? Are we really sure that there is just no way in hell that there is sufficient coverage of the subject to sustain an article? I haven't time to go through them but JSTOR has 54 hits for Jane Farver. Google has many. Let's do some WP:BEFORE please. Vexations (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. Apologies, you’re right. Bad nomination. Mccapra (talk) 04:05, 25 March 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 Tinchy Stryder. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Storm (mixtape)[edit]

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

The album shows no evidence of notability for a standalone article. Alternatively can be merged or redirected to Tinchy Stryder. Less Unless (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tinchy Stryder. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:47, 30 March 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. Based primarily on the consensus that seems to have developed post GoldenAgeFan1's comments re sources (and the common name). There's also consensus to move the article to Jennifer Joan Taylor which I'll do in a minute. GoldenAgeFan1 I'd appreciate it you could please add those sources into the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Taylor (born 1956)[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced BLP of an actress "known" primarily for a supporting role in a television soap opera; other than that, she had one starring role in a profoundly minor film, and otherwise only played two bit part characters without actual names. As always, an actress is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she has an IMDb page -- the notability test for an actress is the ability to reference the article to reliable source coverage about her performances, not just the ability to state that acting roles happened. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the subject may also be known as "Jennifer Joan Taylor" (see here: https://www.rblandmark.com/News/Articles/11-15-2005/Riverside-actress-lands-role-in-hit-TV-show/; https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0852572/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflaw4 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Could not find any RS coverage beyond routine cast listings. userdude 03:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from delete to weak delete in light of The Missoulian and Leader-Telegram sources from GoldenAgeFan1. I still do not find the coverage enough to meet NACTOR or GNG. userdude 19:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has acted in other films, television, theater under the name Jennifer Joan Taylor (as Dflaw speculated above) in addition to the Edge of Night role and has multiple instances of RS coverage. 1, 2, 3 The page should probably be moved to Jennifer Joan Taylor as she used that name more often and is likely better known under that name. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep: I think the subject's recurring roles in Prison Break (TV series) and The Edge of Night are enough to pass WP:NACTOR. There is some coverage out there too, as User:GoldenAgeFan1 notes, although I am not sure about the reliability of those sources—are they just local newspapers? In addition, there are a number of passing mentions in Los Angeles Times articles. If the page stays, I, too, would recommend re-naming it as "Jennifer Joan Taylor". Dflaw4 (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have upgraded my vote to "Keep" based on GoldenAgeFan1's sources. More sources would be preferable, but I think there is enough coverage to just meet WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The third ref above was originally from the Chicago Tribune, which is a large paper and does fact checking and is generally considered a reliable source.GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GoldenAgeFan1. Based on your comment, I will have a think about whether to keep my vote as a "Weak Keep" or upgrade it to a "Keep". Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 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)} 14:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of RS coverage.Sunita.william (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NEXIST, meets GNG. KartikeyaS (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GoldenAgeFan1's comment above, and move to Jennifer Joan Taylor per WP:NATURAL. - Station1 (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Jennifer Joan Taylor, as per GoldenAgeFan1. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Officers Training Academy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commandant of the Officers Training Academy, Chennai[edit]

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article about a non notable topic. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Officers Training Academy. This is how we usually deal with lists of commandants. The list is valid, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, very sensible. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 31 March 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 userfy. I'm comfortable that there is a consensus to userfy the contents of the article taking into account that the concerns raised by those for deletion may be overcome in (hopefully not too much) time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HD 95338[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Prior to 2020, this star clearly didn't meet WP:NASTCRIT. Now there is a preprint paper, not yet accepted for publication. Even accepting the preprint, notability is somewhat flimsy, presumably based on having a slightly odd planet. Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree what HD 95338 contents do not meet notability criteria in WP:NASTCRIT, but should notice the situation is typical for most newly discovered planetary systems, while i cannot find any criteria applicable to HD 95338 in WP:TOOSOON. Also, the WP:NASTCRIT notability criteria for HD 95338 will be meet in future after 2nd publication. 2nd publication is virtually certain given solid observational evidence in preprint and somewhat anomalous nature of planet HD 95338 b mandating follow-up study in years to come. Formally, i.m.h.o. deletion proposal falls to Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion#Article_quality case. Trurle (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While maybe WP:TOOSOON isn't the correct deletion criteria, I do agree with the general assertion of Lithopsian that this should be deleted. Even assuming the preprint is published, this is only one published source and as far as I can tell there aren't anymore. Thus, this doesn't meet general notability criteria. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a reason this has no entry at List of stars in Vela? Doesn't seem like there's an WP:LSC bar to inclusion there and an entry exists in Template:Stars of Vela, unless there's some WP:ASTRO discussion I'm unaware of that dictates otherwise. Initial analysis is that it seems like a very small amount of this should be smerged to the list with a possible spin-out later if multiple publications eventually end up providing SIGCOV. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Pinging Trurle it looks like everyone agrees that WP:NASTCRIT controls and is not presently met. A possible WP:ATD here would be to Userfy as one of your subpages in the interim until the criteria are met, you could continue to work on it there, and it saves you a later trip to refund. Material could still copied to the list as long as WP:CWW was adhered to. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for noticing. Added HD 95338 to the List of stars in Vela. Regarding proposal to userfy HD 95338, it may be ok. Waiting for consensus.Trurle (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per discussion above. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Does not currently meet notability criteria. Regarding the comment above of "2nd publication is virtually certain given solid observational evidence", the topic needs to establish notability based on current sources, not future ones. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiji Arulampalam[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements. James Richards 19:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrichards12345 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. James Richards 19:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. James Richards 19:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. James Richards 19:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added sources independent of the subject (such as Forbes and the Investors Chronicle) which mention the person and their research. These sources are reliable. Another way to assess the notability of the person is by googling their name followed by site:wikipedia.org which shows that their work is quoted in 10 other Wikipedia articles. Also, just for transparency, I do not know the person and thought they were notable enough (being an economist myself) to have a page. Happy to have other people's opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lainx (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Her work has been cited thousands of times which alone is more than enough to fly by the standard of WP:PROF Sulfurboy (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:PROF. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per WP:PROF. ~riley (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:45, 31 March 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) 05:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheilah Gashumba[edit]

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

It does not meet notability requirements, no reputable sources cover this individual instead it is just blogs and Ugandan news sites. James Richards 19:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrichards12345 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. James Richards 19:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. James Richards 19:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. James Richards 19:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. James Richards 19:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. James Richards 19:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete highly prmotional article for minor media figure. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article looks very promotional. The inclusion of excessive inline citations is evidence that the subject isn't notable. None of the awards the subject won (or was nominated for) is notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Part of string of highly promotional articles by this editor on entertainers that fail WP:GNG. Heavily WP:REFBOMBed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is obviously promotional but AfD is not cleanup. The subject has been covered in multiple independent reliable sources. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:53, 30 March 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) 05:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Bhangu[edit]

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

No independant coverage, could only find two paid PR pieces. His company is not notable at all and I could not verify it having won an award. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only non-paid sources are about people he has worked with and do not focus on Bhangu. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot possibly think of any reason why Aman Bhangu should be considered a notable figure, especially with the sources provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamanderson (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable figure in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill young business person, insufficiently deep coverage. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 31 March 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) 05:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Nuna[edit]

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

It appears to be too soon for an article on this singer. I cannot find any reliable reviews or media coverage for his career or any of his releases. All that can be found are typical retail/streaming sites, and even those with text (such as the oft-cited GhanaWeb) are merely promotional announcements that were probably written by the management or record company. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject is still a high school student who isn't close to being notable any time soon. I personally don't think new editors should be allowed to create articles by bypassing the WP:AFC process. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON at this stage with a lack of coverage, but may be notable in the future if he has some hit records that will generate extra coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 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) 05:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Durrance[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a Denton City Councilmember with an unsuccessful Congressional campaign. References are comprised of routine campaign coverage, non-independent sources and primary sources. GPL93 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Denton TX is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors, so the only way to make him notable for that is to show nationalizing coverage about him to establish that his significance transcends Denton alone. But being a candidate for higher offices that he did not win is also not a notability clincher in and of itself — a person has to hold a notable office, not just run for one, to be notable per WP:NPOL, and absent that he has to demonstrate that either (a) he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article independently of the candidacy, or (b) his candidacy was significantly more special than everybody else's candidacies, for some reason that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But neither of those conditions are being demonstrated here either. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as Durrance is a local politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:10, 30 March 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) 05:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Herzog[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a current primary candidate and does not pass WP:GNG as Herzog is not notable outside of his campaign. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Has been covered outside of his Congressional run with his work with the Andrew Yang Presidential Campaign. Other notable campaign staffers have Wikipedias, so there is precedent. His Congressional run is notable too and has appeared on Fox News, The Young Turks and Cheddar to discuss his ideas. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any reliable coverage of his time on the Yang campaign except for in relation to his primary bid, which is not unusual for campaign coverage (former X staffer announces run for Y office is an incredibly common headline), so he is likely not independently notable as a staffer. I am also struggling to find reliable sourcing other than passing mentions of his campaign outside of the coverage he received in the aftermath of his initial announcement to run (it would appear that challenger Lindsey Boylan has received the bulk of the coverage since then). Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's received plenty of coverage before and after announcing his campaign. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]Pennsylvania2 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People are not notable just because their name gets mentioned in coverage whose core subject is somebody else — he has to be the subject of the coverage, not just glancingly namechecked in coverage of Yang, to be notable for working for Yang. And YouTube videos self-published by "Nerds for Yang" are not notability-supporting sources, nor is anything on Inquistr or anything self-published by a non-media organization. So no, zero of these links count for anything. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was just written about in the Jerusalem Post. [8]Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign coverage doesn't speak to permanent notability unless it shows a strong reason to treat his candidacy as much more enduringly special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's already received coverage from his work with Yang. He's been covered internationally including in the Times of Israel and nationally by Fox News. Not just local or trivial coverage. [9], [10]

Those sources are not covering him in the context of working with Yang; they are mentioning his work with Yang as background information in coverage being given in the context of his Congressional candidacy. That's not the same thing, and it is not how you establish that he has preexisting notability for working with Yang. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's the case is international coverage not a sign of notability? This isn't coverage just after his announcement, either. He's receiving coverage in Israel and from Fox News just this week.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically notable just for being candidates in elections they have not won — the main notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for it. Other than that, the only two other ways a candidate can be notable without winning the election first are if (a) he was already notable enough for other reasons independent of the candidacy that he would already have qualified for an article even if he weren't running for office (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) a substantive reason can be demonstrated why his candidacy would be much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (the Christine O'Donnell test). But neither of those is being demonstrated here at all: six of the ten footnotes are primary sources, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him to any non-trivial degree, and one is from a user-generated news aggregator, which means eight of the ten sources are not valid support for notability at all. And of the two that are from legitimate media, both of them are just covering his initial announcement of his candidacy, which is a kind of source that every candidate in every election everywhere can always show — so it does not represent enough coverage to exempt him from having to win the election first, because it just makes him a WP:BLP1E at best.
GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anybody who has two or more" — it tests for the reliability of the sources, the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about Herzog, the geographic range of how widely he's getting covered, and the context of what he's getting covered for, and is not just n=>2. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOL, fails GNG (per depth of coverage). No sense in explaining further as Bearcat covered it very well. John from Idegon (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheslav Golovinets (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT as the films in which the subject acted ars not notable. Antila333 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on my search for English sources, the subject does not pass WP:GNG. I don't think WP:ENT is met, either, since he has only had one significant role, as far as I can tell. If anyone is able to find anything that indicates otherwise, I will update my vote accordingly. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:36, 27 March 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hamza El Houseni[edit]

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

Non-notable at all, he haven't placed or won any notable awards, and most of the sources are not reliable, fails WP:N, it has also been deleted on ar.wiki, and on en.wiki. Faisal ^talk 18:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Faisal ^talk 18:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete At this stage, there don't seem to be any notable claims. ~~But I could be convinced otherwise if more sourced info appears about his UN role.~~ Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn’t have a UN role. Each UN member state has a local charity called the UN Association, and he leads the one in Egypt. Nothing here shouting notability to me. Mccapra (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. I have revised my opinion above. Agreed, there isn't anything notable in the subject's corporate career. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Largly unsources with no evidence of notability. --KartikeyaS (talk) 07:00, 30 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Hall[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not adequately sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, every mayor of everywhere is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- making a mayor notable enough for inclusion requires significant press coverage. But the only sources here are his own "your mayor" profile on the city government's own self-published primary source website about itself, which is not a notability-supporting source as it isn't independent of the subject, and one piece of raw technical verification of his vote total in an election. This is not enough sourcing to make a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And I will be restoring Kirby Griffin (American football) to this title. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Griffin[edit]

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

I deleted a very similar article a few days ago, following the deletion discussion here, which determined that the subject was not notable. This new article has a few new sentences and sources, so I don't think that G4 would be appropriate, but I note that none of the new sources give significant coverage of the subject - they have pictures of her, but no prose about her. Still no evidence that GNG or NMODEL is met. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any non-trivial coverage whatsoever, other than confirmation that she is a model who has appeared in Sports Illustrated; to my knowledge, that alone doesn't qualify. The Forbes article alluded to in the article has the wrong link, but one with a similar title that I did find does not mention her. In summary, the criteria set forth at WP:BIO are not met. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is well established any one of the accomplishments by Kirby Griffin has met the threshold of having a wiki page like her counter parts from being an actress in House, being the only real life Black Barbie recognized by Mattel, an official Playboy Miss September, official annual S.I. swimsuit model and more. Let's just take one example: How is having a page dedicated to Playmate of the month valid and various wiki pages created for these playmates valid but Kirby Griffin is singled out as invalid? Despite having more accolades than many of the wiki pages of other Playmates of the month? Are you going to go back to 1953 and start wiping out all the wiki of each of these winners? Wikkot

This model's accomplishments need acknowledgment from reliable sources that are both independent of the model and independent of her employers. The article's references don't meet that standard. Playmates of the Month used to be considered notable automatically, but that is no longer true. Non-notable Playmate articles are still being redirected their appropriate Playmate list articles. The list for this article is List of Playboy Playmates of 2018. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'd be comfortable with a 'delete then redirect' to List of Playboy Playmates of 2018.~~GirthSummit _(blether) 11:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, delete outright and don't redirect to list. Kirby Griffin (American football) originally held this title and should be moved back. See my !vote for a more detailed rationale. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I'd forgotten there was another article about a subject of that name, a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article fails WP:GNG, as it is sourced entirely to primary sources and one press release and even that is mostly passing mentions. The article also fails WP:ENTERTAINER, as Griffin has not starred in two or more notable productions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see no evidence of notability here as per Devonian Wombat. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basic notability guidelines at WP:ANYBIO are clearly not met, lacking as the article does any indication of the topic having received broad coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources. And a WP:BEFORE search indicates a further dearth of such in both the relevant literature and news outlets. ——SN 54129 09:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. In addition to my comments above about the article's lack of independent references, WP:BEFORE searches yield trivial mentions such as photo captions. Please note that Kirby Griffin (American football) was moved and dabbed to make way for this "notable fashion model." I propose moving back rather than redirecting "Kirby Griffin" to a list of Playboy Playmates. The football player is the only notable Kirby Griffin in Wikipedia, and a hat note to a Playboy topic is more trouble than it's worth. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 26 March 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. Nomination withdrawn. The Moose 13:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Allen Chau (missionary)[edit]

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

Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. All information is adequately covered at Sentinelese and related articles. No need to fork an article about the poor, hapless man in the middle of all this. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be improved, not deleted. Many missionaries have standalone articles, especially if they were murdered or arrested while on foreign soil, including John Short, Jeffrey Edward Fowle, and perhaps the most infamous, Jim Elliot. I think Chau is the most notable example of our time. He was the first missionary (and one of only a few individuals) to ever set foot on North Sentinel Island, he was murdered, and his actions have caused considerable controversy. Much can be added to this article. Dreamanderson (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the references in the article. St Anselm (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the question here is whether he passes WP:BLP1E, and I believe he does, given there is coverage of him that is more extensive than just one news cycle, and there is substantial biographical content sourced to reliable secondary sources that would be out of place in the main Sentinelese article. Undisputedly a moron, but morons still get articles. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question would also be, if he passes BLP1E and furthermore, WP:BIO1E, does the article need to be renamed "Death of John Chau" or similar as well, which can be adjudicated on the article talk page. The fact remains that this article was created suddenly without discussion, and I feel it was ill-advised. Elizium23 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given he's dead, BLP1E does not apply! Clearly notable in any case. Extensive coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's been dead over a year, which is on the "outside" curve of 2 years specified in WP:BDP. Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't come up with any cases where a deleted article has been undeleted after someone has been dead over 2 years, or an article created under WP:BIO1E that would've been deleted if it were created closer to the subject's death. Unless, of course, it were an article about the event and not the person. Elizium23 (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Jai49 (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can call it BDP1E. He wasn't notable before he tried to proselytize and he isn't notable now. The only reporting has been on his death which is more than adequately covered in the article on the island. Praxidicae (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I suspect that this case will be cited periodically over future years, so that it is worth having an article. This is quite adequately sourced. His case may differ only from that of Jim Elliot and his martyred companions, in that he left a widow to publicise and follow up what he did. That does not feel to me a good reason for having an article on one but not the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Necrostesp and others— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--This article is needed to correct misinformation concerning his effort, such as that he did not have adequate linguistic training.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do withe the actual policy based reasoning for keeping or deleting? Praxidicae (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this help to reduce the total sum of bigotry in the world. If you read the discussion above you will notice an editor using an unsavory epithet concerning him. Why even have a Wikipedia if hatred should reign supreme? Articles like this help to fight darker impulses. If you you need a policy to understand this, go read the 5 pillars.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is still not a relevant criteria for keeping an article, see WP:ILIKEIT. Perhaps this article does help reduce the amount of bigotry and darker impulses in the world, but Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn by proposer per WP:SNOW. I will proceed to address the naming of the article after close. Thank you for your attention to this exceedingly trivial matter. Elizium23 (talk) 07:39, 30 March 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) 05:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Harvie (mayor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a suburban mayor, not properly demonstrated as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and must show "significant press coverage" to clear the notability bar -- but "significant press coverage" does not mean just three or four hits of purely local verification of election results, because every mayor of everywhere can always show that: actually getting a mayor over the notability bar requires evidence of much more, wider and/or deeper coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a mayor of a city that is not even the largest city in its metro area. Such figures need good sourcing to show notability, which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 26 March 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) 05:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Johnson Summer Tour 2020[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Firstly, this isn't the official name of the tour – in fact, it doesn't have a name, because it just consists of a few festival dates. Secondly, it's not "his" tour – the only date he is headlining is the one at Marshfield on July 10, and for all of them he is just one of numerous acts on the line-up. Thirdly, the Bernie Sanders rally wasn't part of the tour. Fourthly, the Billboard Boxoffice and Pollstar sources are both from two years ago and refer to his previous tour, not this one. There are no reliable sources for this so-called "tour" and the only sources online are the usual ticket seller websites. As there is no official name, there's no point redirecting this to Jack Johnson's article, because no one will look for an imaginary name, and a search will bring up that article before typing this one in anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this article satisfies WP:NTOUR or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The possibility of this tour becoming reliable is uncertain at the moment. There's not enough coverage to justify a weak keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Cox[edit]

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

Second person not even in Wikipedia article. Only reason that the page is linked by a large number of pages is that the second is mentioned in Template:St Mirren F.C. managers. This could be removed and avoid a disambiguation. Just from a user's perspective, it doesn't make sense to click on a name only to be brought to a disambiguation page where you can't click on any further article. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination per discussion that redirect would be appropriate. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12). There is a drag queen by this name, so the page serves a purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the second person with no article is eligible for one as per the guidelines of notability in sports, so a redlink correctly existed. The first person refers to a redirect created for a reality show contestant who would not be eligible for their own article at this stage,but the creation of the redirect caused the redlinks for the sportsman to activate. Therefore a disambiguation of some kind is needed, as Jackie Cox the drag queen was not St Mirren manager, but there is no justification for amending the redlinks to Jackie Cox (footballer) since its debatable whether the RuPaul contestant should even have such a link at all, and certainly isn't the primary topic for the name. It should probably not have been created at all. Crowsus (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crowsus, I created Jackie Cox and Jackie Cox (drag queen). If Jackie Cox should be about a notable person in sports, then create a stub! Or, change the red links to Jackie Cox (footballer) or whatever. But, as far as I'm concerned, there's no reason to delete Jackie Cox altogether when it serves at least the purpose of redirecting to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12). There are redirects for ALL RuPaul's Drag Race contestants. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'll do the footballer one tonight and then the disambig can remain, with the possibility of moving the drag artist's article here if they become sufficiently famous through this series, which I realise is ongoing and they are still in. Crowsus (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(As the nominator) I'd think a redirect would be appropriate, but I wanted to bring it up here to generate discussion. If someone wants to create the article, that would be great! Sam-2727 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727, If you think a redirect is appropriate, then this nomination should be withdrawn. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that Jackie Cox (footballer) has been created. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, have added a link to Ru Paul on the footballer page, not even sure that's necessary, but with that and the status of this disambig I'm very happy to go with the consensus/standards. Crowsus (talk) 20:05, 26 March 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. Nomination withdrawn; now deleted as G5 by Doug Weller. (non-admin closure) Crossroads ^-talk- 16:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of discoveries of writings[edit]

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

Another vague, pointless, and poorly written list from the creator of List of discoveries in anthropology (AfD). For an especially bad example of the problems here, see citation note 3.

This fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, it needs WP:TNT because it is so poorly written to the point of unfixability, it is vaguely defined to the point of WP:OR, and it was written by a sock and thus could qualify for WP:G5, and in any case should be deleted per WP:BLOCKEVADE. However, before it was confirmed they were a sock, I prodded it; it was later de-prodded by the same user who de-prodded List of discoveries in anthropology, and who is so far the only keep vote amongst 5 deletes. If this does still qualify for G5, I would like to know since I did not appreciate having to spend time on these AfDs.

The author of the article was originally blocked for their lack of comprehensibility and other issues, as can be seen at the ANI report on them. Other 'list of discovery' articles similar to this one that they created have been deleted at AfD. [11][12] Crossroads ^-talk- 14:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: could you withdraw this as I've deleted it as G5, no substantial edits by any other editors. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Christian Fellowship Ministries. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayman Mitchell[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. The sources currently used are self-published, primary sources and the few independent sources I found would be better suited on his church page rather than his personal page. JohnnyBflat (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. JohnnyBflat (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JohnnyBflat (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If as the CFM page says, he is the founder of a movement that now has 2000 churches, he is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Been watching this page for a bit and can't figure out why it was not AfD yet. He is mentioned on the church page and should not have a personal Wikipedia page. Sgerbic (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete & Redirect to church page, and merge any RS material (if any) to the churches page. All the sources used are currently self-published by devotees, not really RS. CatCafe (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--articles about bishops are typically kept. He is close enough for our purposes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epiphyllumlover, I did read that but I note that WP:CLERGY says it is for major denominations, which CFM is not. It also says, "People listed as bishops in Pentecostal denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage." and this is where I believe he fails. JohnnyBflat (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination was written into the rule on WP. Sort of like how the IRS has special rules for certain denominations but not others, even though supposedly church and state are separate, some denominations simply due to size or history had better lobbying access. We can do better than that. As he was personally involved at one point in leading over 100 churches that would make him into a sort of bishop. As for the association that he is credited with founding, I don't think that would necessarily make him notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but the discrimination goes further than between major and minor denominations. It discriminates between religious and non-religious people in that otherwise non-notable people can get a page simply for holding a high office (bishop) in a religion whereas their equivelant in a secular organisation cannot. We can certainly do better by removing the clergy clause and applying the same standards of notablilty to everyone across the board. JohnnyBflat (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closest secular equivalents to bishops listed under the "people" notability guidelines are the "named chair" standard for academics and the standard that judges holding a statewide office are notable. Bishops exercise a judicial function, although that is not their only role. The matter is that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Catholicism/Notability_guide#People due to the number of Catholics using this website. If the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Charismatic_Christianity was still active, maybe the members would have written their own notability guideline.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete- any mention of him could be covered on the church’s page. He doesn’t seem to be notable while the church does seem to be. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to church page. He fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- any mention of him could be covered on the church’s page. He isn't notable while the church does seem to be. Nothing has been added to the page since this AfD started to improve his notability. No additional news items or articles pertaining to him have appeared in the media. He is still not notable.Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- He meets the GNG guideline due to a level of coverage adequate for our purposes, as found in these sources. All but one appear to be third party. One may or may not be third party. Here are articles: Discerning the Body: An Analysis of Pentecostalism in the Netherlands, The Development Of Pentecostalism In Dutch Speaking Countries, ETHOS, COSMOVISIÓN Y EFICACIA SIMBÓLICA EN UN GRUPO PENTECOSTAL and here are books: The Jesus People Movement: A Story of Spiritual Revolution among the Hippies and In Pursuit of Destiny : the Life Story of Wayman Mitchell by Ian Wilson, and Still Taking the Land by David J. Drum, The Vine and the Branches by Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, and Pentecost, Mission, and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural Theology : Festschrift in Honour of Professor Walter J. Hollenweger by Walter J. Hollenwege and P. Lang (page 139).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed each link, I have to disagree. 3 sources are self-published, 1 source is a passing mention that tells us nothing except his name, 3 sources cannot be accessed to determine if there is enough material to qualify, and 1 would be more appropriate on the church page. Let me break each source down in more detail. Discerning the Body: An Analysis of Pentecostalism in the Netherlands - What does it actually say? It cannot be accessed to determine if there is anything relevant or just mentions his name in passing. The Development Of Pentecostalism In Dutch Speaking Countries. - Same as previous. ETHOS, COSMOVISIÓN Y EFICACIA SIMBÓLICA EN UN GRUPO PENTECOSTAL. - His name is mentioned once in passing but nothing about him or his church so it doesn't qualify. The Jesus People Movement: A Story of Spiritual Revolution among the Hippies. - A rehash of self-published primary sources. See my comments further down the page for context. In Pursuit of Destiny. - Self-published primary source. Still Taking the Land. - Self-published primary source. The Vine and the Branches. - More about the development of CFM and its split from Foursquare, so better suited on the church page. Pentecost, Mission, and Ecumenism: Essays on Intercultural Theology. - What does it actually say? We get part of a sentence and that's it. Not enough to determine its usability one way or the other. JohnnyBflat (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to church page. Hi, thanks for pinging me. Sources used are mostly self-published by devotees, not really RS. CatCafe (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not true that there aren't independent sources.--Jahaza (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Epiphyllumlover & Jahaza pinging me and others to restate our position here, just to start an argumentative debate or to infer that I lie? I'm not interested, so give it a break you two. I have looked at the article again and I stand by my statement: "Sources used are mostly self-published by devotees". The article's been as poor as this over the last decade, so no-one has previously cared. It's an atrocious article that doesn't conform with WP policies, it needs deleting and redirecting. CatCafe (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for pinging you, I went through the edit history and sent brief messages to all sorts of people going back to 2014 with two exceptions, JohnnyBflat, and Ser Amantio di Nicolao who was only adding authority control and I didn't think he would be interested one way or another. I should have checked to see if the people I had pinged had already contributed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A) I didn't ping anyone to come here. B) I took you to mean "sources used to support keeping," not "sources used in the article," since the latter is not particularly relevant to the question of notability and notability is what is being discussed here.--Jahaza (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to church page. The former content of the article was mostly unsourced, so there is no loss in removing it from public access. – Fayenatic London 20:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that mention him are mainly about the church, not the person, so "delete and redirect" remains the appropriate action, despite the additional citations suggested. – Fayenatic London 12:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are RS's:
- Charisma Magazine is a reliable source on the Charismatic movement from outside the Potter's House denomination.[13]
- Mitchell is covered in Richard A. Bustraan's The Jesus People Movement: A Story of Spiritual Revolution Among the Hippies[14], a scholarly book reviewed in academic journals[15][16]

There is wide news coverage demonstrating his influence.

- News coverage from Guam and Micronesia where his church is popular[17]
- News coverage from Romania[18]
- News coverage from the Netherlands[19]

Up above, Epiphyllumlover has provided additional links to scholarly books.--Jahaza (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Charisma magazine article would be better suited to the church page as it's primarily about a church split. The Jesus People Movement book is a collation of information cited from the same self-published sources used on Mitchels page currently without adding anything new, so can hardly be considered a reliable source. The article from Guam, I agree with you. The coverage from Romania and the Netherlands, I can't say as I don't speak the language. What's the WP policy for using foreign language articles on English pages? So I think there's only one article there that would meet the requirements. I will have a look at Epiphyllumlovers list and comment shortly. JohnnyBflat (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus People book is a reliable source because it is published by Pickwick Publications of Eugene Oregon. Citing some self-published sources does not discredit it. Pickwick/Wipf and Stock is a scholarly book publisher, see this. As for foreign language sources, you can use a machine translator. See also Wikipedia:Attribution: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but according to WP:Secondary the Jesus People book is NOT a reliable source because a secondary source "provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The Jesus People book does none of this. It just rehashes the primary source information, thus remaining a primary source. JohnnyBflat (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to translating the two foreign language articles. The Romanian one is primarily about prisoners converting in order to receive aid packages and only mentions Mitchell in passing, so not a RS. The Dutch article is primarily about tent revivals and mentions Mitchell is the head of the American church at the end, so possibly a RS but I think it's iffy. JohnnyBflat (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you people please take this debate to the article's talk page - i.e. discussion about what sources are not in the article (and who no-one thought were attributable before). These debates are 9 years too late and in the wrong place. Seems to be a lot of regretful venting going on here. Let's get back to the issue at hand, the page is an atrocious article that doesn't conform with WP policies that's sources used are mostly self-published by devotees. I have seen no commitment to improve the article, so it's likely it will remain poorly and thus it should go. CatCafe (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your concern I added two reliable sources to the article, but ~~JohnnyBflat~~ Roxy the dog reverted them. See this diff [20]--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. Please doublecheck your claims before posting, thanks. JohnnyBflat (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your diff proved you wrong Epiphyllumlover. That was someone else, not JohnnyBflat as you claim. CatCafe (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that diff. I can also see it was done by Roxy the dog and not me. So I reiterate, please doublecheck your claims before posting them in future. JohnnyBflat (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been such a slow motion trainwreck - you guys need to look at the wider picture;) Now, EPL, I can offer you consolation ... we have all done it, and you will have to own it. See the top of my own Talk page as the perfect example. best. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 23:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Roxy the dog reverted me, not JohnnyBflat, so I was wrong as he said I was. Meanwhile it seems there is an edit war over adding the sources or not.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to the "church". He's perhaps pertinant to the church, but doesn't meet GNG himself. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in totality there is enough reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion to pass WP:GNG particularly as sources do not have to be directly about him but include information about him such as articles and books that are mainly about the church but have coverage of him as well so he does qualify for a stand-alone article, imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to his church page, per several commentors above; he fails notability. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 04:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TNT - churches can be notable by the number of adherents, number of clergy/employees, and other objective indicia. Clergy are not automatically notable. I don't see WP:SIGCOV for this person. The article is a hash of personal items, soapboxing or evangelism, and just plain poor English writing. We are a non-sectarian charity, not a free web host for evangelism. I do not oppose a redirect, as we have done for assistant bishops, monsignors, canons, and similar Christian clergy. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 1 April 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr AQ Khan Gold Medal[edit]

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

Non-notable awards. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 2 April 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 Alfred-Ingemar Berndt#Allied pilot murder. There is a consensus (noting the limited participation) is in favour of the policy-backed rationale given by the nominator. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Gordon Dennis[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, a U.S. lieutenant airman shot down in World War II and murdered by the Nazis is not inherently notable. Under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" and there is a separate and larger article for his murderer, Nazi Alfred-Ingemar Berndt Mztourist (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to say keep, I don't like the idea of a redirect to the article of the person that murdered him. Also, covered by more than five different authors, although they are short points I think it all adds up to just pass notability. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of what WP policy/criteria? He's not "covered by more than five different authors", there is one newspaper report and findagrave.com which is not WP:RS, all the rest is about Berndt and the Nazi policy against "terror-flyers". Mztourist (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alfred-Ingemar Berndt, where the murder is mentioned. Per nom, this is a tragedy but not a notable one. Fails WP:BIO1E, WP:SOLDIER, and WP:GNG. b uidhe 10:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 24 March 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. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLIB[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill software, fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. A quick Google search brings up very little. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 09:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:19, 24 March 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 Attila (metalcore band). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Villain (album)[edit]

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

Low-charting album with nothing to elevate the article beyond a stub. Fails WP:GNG. The title makes it difficult to find additional sources. Would not object to a redirect either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep or redirect to Attila (metalcore band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This article, and various media sources, announce that the album made the Billboard charts, though I cannot confirm because I am not paying for Billboard's new membership service. The album also got some minor reviews: [21], [22], [23], [24]. This is a longstanding band that used to get a lot more media attention; this 2019 album maybe shows a loss of interest in the metal/punk media but it did get some basic notice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I saw all of those "reviews". They're not reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:19, 24 March 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) 19:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NIIT Technologies[edit]

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

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The vast majority fail WP:ORGIND as they rely on information provided by connected parties or announcements. Others are mentions-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs more WP:RS for expanding the article and there is an unsourced bit that sounds highly promotional but overall a pretty well known company in India. A deeper search for RS which are 10+ years old should be more fruitful (current RS just talk about company shares and acquisitions). SerChevalerie (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response That all a bit vague and wishy-washy if you didn't actually bother to search/find any references! HighKing⁺⁺ 14:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable company. All the sources out there are press releases or stuff about stock price fluctuations. None of which meets WP:GNG standards. There definitely isn't enough in-depth coverage to warrant keeping the article and trying to re-write it. If that route was taken it would just be a perma-stub. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability except some WP:ROUTINE coverage. --KartikeyaS (talk) 07:04, 30 March 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 Fatal Five. There's no argument being made for notability. A redirect outcome does not prevent future merging should that discussion feel it appropriate. However, some attempt at a merge or a redirect before coming to AfD is helpful. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mano (character)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. It lacks reliable sources that contain significant coverage on the character. Factual encyclopedias lacking commentary are not significant coverage. TTN (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect with Fatal Five. Again, for comic book characters who are part of a team or organization, merger discussions seem more appropriate rather than outright deletion. The other members of the team could probably be merged as well. Rhino131 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with Rhino131. Merge discussion are a more appropriate avenue for articles like this than AFD. — Hunter Kahn 19:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close. I've started a merge discussion at Talk:Fatal Five#Merge discussion about whether to merge each of the five individual character articles (Mano (character), Emerald Empress, Persuader (comics), Tharok, and Validus) to the Fatal Five page. I've also placed a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics seeking input into that discussion. I'd suggest this is the more appropriate venue for this discussion at this point, so the AFD should be closed for now to allow for that merge discussion to take place. If the discussion does not result in a merge, the nominator always be free to nominate this article for AFD at a later point. — Hunter Kahn 19:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fatal Five. This character is already covered sufficiently there, and there is no need to shut down this AfD so a slumbering merge discussion can do the exact same thing except slower and less efficiently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - Per Hunter Kahn. Dark Knight 2149 10:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It looks bad but Wp:Imperfect. I think it has potential for notability like the rest of Fatal Five. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhidnya Bhave[edit]

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

Not Fits in Wikipedia Catagory UserPankajM (talk) 09:55, 24 March 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 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG with significant coverage by Times of India. Article in its current state needs to be improved and expanded upon, though. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion, there are at least two adequate Times of India sources contained in the article, which go towards WP:GNG, and the subject has probably done enough work to make a case for WP:NACTOR, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes general notability guidelines, including in Marathi sources. Missvain (talk) 18:59, 31 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Sawant[edit]

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

Article formatted in way of essay and written as publicity of a director. Need more reliable sources for such articles. UserPankajM (talk) 09:43, 24 March 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 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is promotional. Jeff Quinn (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. No evidence of BEFORE. Please, NB: WP:NEXIST. Director of the 2003 winner of the National Film Award for Best Feature Film. Credited with being part of the revival of Marathi films in the early 2000s.^[1]^[2] Meets GNG and DIRECTOR.

References

^ Gokulsing, K. Moti; Dissanayake, Wimal (2013). Routledge Handbook of Indian Cinemas. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-77291-7.
^ Matkari, Ganesh MatkariGanesh (22 September 2017). "FILM: NADI VAHATE". Pune Mirror. Retrieved 26 March 2020.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:DIRECTOR based on the sources presented by Goldsztajn. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:DIRECTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Eggishorn. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gajendra Ahire[edit]

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

{{{text}}} UserPankajM (talk) 09:46, 24 March 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 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: No reason has been given for the nomination. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:GNG by significant coverage in WP:RS. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. No evidence of BEFORE. Simple search reveals multiple RS. 2006 National Film Award for Best Feature Film in Marathi. Easily meets GNG and DIRECTOR. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR ,have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:07, 29 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sujay Dahake[edit]

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

First Impression is like made for Publicity and no reliable sources. UserPankajM (talk) 09:37, 24 March 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 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Winner of National Film Award. Meets DIRECTOR. Also of note for raising issue of casteism in Marathi film/television.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ "Sujay Dahake's statement sparks debate about preferentialism in the Marathi industry - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 26 March 2020.
^ "I always felt out of place with my theatre friends, says Sujay Dahake". Hindustan Times. 10 March 2019.
^ "Sujay Dahake on his Tujhya Aaila being selected for IFFI's Indian Panorama". The Indian Express. 21 October 2019.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR have added 6 references to the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Any nomination based on "first impressions" suggests lack of WP:BEFORE and Goldsztajn and Pharaoh of the Wizards show that qualifications for WP:DIRECTOR were available. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. UserPankajM, please follow WP:BEFORE to avoid creating unnecessary which waste the time of volunteers here. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shantaram Athavale[edit]

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

Not Sufficient Resources UserPankajM (talk) 09:35, 24 March 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 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. No evidence of BEFORE. Winner of National Film Award Certificate of Merit (Feature Films in Marathi); worked on the first Indian film (Sant Tukaram) to receive international acclaim (eg film of the year at Venice). Easily meets GNG and WP:DIRECTOR.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article already has multiple reliable book sources and he has won a notable award so both WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are passed in my view and he deserves to be included not least because he holds a place in the evolution of Indian cinema, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 29 March 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. Deleted G7 - user requested deletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Industries and Resources SA[edit]

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

Worser and worser... Sorry, my brain is scrambled tonight! I just nominated the talk page for deletion instead of the article page. Please delete as I created this under the wrong name. Primary Industries and Regions SA now created instead. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 24 March 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 Superquinn. Merge/redirect that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Select Retail Holdings[edit]

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

I have doubts this company passes WP:COMPANY/GNG. There is some mentions in passing, generally routine press releases and their rewrites about the company's acquisitions, out of which Superquinn seems to have been the most significant, but I don't think it is a valid merge and redirect target. Then there is a bit coverage of their trouble, including the best piece I've found [25]. So, does anyone things this can be salvaged and pass NCOMPANY? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Superquinn. A WP:BEFORE search returns more than a little bit of coverage of this holding company/consortium. However all of it relates to its acquisition of Superquinn in 2005 and the sale of that asset (following receivership) to Musgraves in 2011. All of this could easily be covered in the Superquinn article. And, frankly, already is. WP:PRODUCT, WP:MERGEREASON and WP:CFORK all seem to apply. No need for a separate perma-stub on the holding company. Guliolopez (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Superquinn for the reasons given above that I don't feel the need to repeat. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same - Merge/redirect to Superquinn for the reasons given above that I don't feel the need to repeat. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blake LeVine[edit]

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

The sources supporting this BLP don’t seem to me to make the subject notable. Being on Oprah and authoring some books on mental health are the main claims to notability here, and the article seems intended to promote the subject. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best noticed in off beat human insteret stories which are not the thing notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Ledin[edit]

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

Not sure that this professor meets the notability requirements for academics. Essentially one piece of coverage in Newsweek. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he passes WP:PROF, it could only be for #C7, impact outside academia. But I think there is significant impact inside and outside academia for his malware teaching; I added four more sources, two of them significantly before the Newsweek piece and two significantly after (including one academic study of his teaching by someone else) that I think show this aspect of his work is not just a flash in the pan and to provide enough depth of sourcing for WP:GNG. (Not added: many more stories that merely quote the Newsweek piece without adding much of their own original reporting.) He was also the author of multiple computer science books in the 1970s and early 1980s; it's hard to find review sources from that time because many of them would have been print instead of online, but I found two reviews (one of them short) of one of his books, a multi-book review including another, and a brief paragraph (maybe a publisher description rather than a review) of a third. It's a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR but on top of the malware material I think it's enough to save this from BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG as described by Eppstein above. This is a great example of WP:HEY. TJMSmith (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Eppstein's improvements to the article demonstrate that it meets the GNG. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 4 April 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Sapkota[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Can't find evidence for WP:NPOL either. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this makes no credible claim that he has preexisting notability for other reasons and offers no reason why his candidacy could be deemed much more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:NPOL fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Jeff Quinn (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Losing candidate; he lost two times. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:08, 30 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Lianren[edit]

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

Having difficulty finding reliable looking sources for this figure. Also the fact the this individual just simply disappeared is a red flag. Prisencolin (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. My first thought was that in 1936 a Chinese athlete’s name would have been rendered in Wade-Giles and not in pinyin, so I looked under Chia Lien-Jen but nothing there either. The one source for this article is an unreliable spam magnetic. Mccapra (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Struck my !vote in the light of sources found by other editors. Mccapra (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the reasons always raised at every Olympian AfD. Come on, people. It took me two seconds to find another source showing his winning the 800 and 1500 at the Chinese National Games. Sports-Reference is neither unreliable nor a spam magnet; instead, it is instead rather close to authoritative. The Official Report of the 1936 Olympics lists him as competing (yes, under the rendering Chia). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he competed at the Olympics, per WP:NOLY, and per the expansion work done by Sinobball. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Olympic competitor and multiple national champion of a large country. SFB 19:20, 26 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EarTop Technologies[edit]

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

Run of the mill Kickstarter funded tech company that didn't even deliver their product. Also lacks in-depth, none trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the firm is notable and the sources don't seem that reliable. Golem08 (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 24 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie “Bud” Vivian Award for Community Service[edit]

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

no evidence of any notability outside the immediate region. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple mentions on https://patch.com/ and https://centraljersey.com/ indicate notability beyond immediate region. It is a community service award that gets written up in the press every year it is given. Not all awards are global. Sincerely --Mrgarden 2342 (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central new jersey is exactly what I mean by immediate reason, and patch.com is a collection of local new services. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this award may be world famous in the greater Princeton area, it appears to have gathered little (or no) interest outside of that area, even elsewhere in the state of New Jersey. The sources provided are indicative of the local nature of the award. Alansohn (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAWARD (which is no more a policy but still). Independent sources are mostly passing mentions. desmay (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impala Car Rental[edit]

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

Non-notable business that does not satisfy corporate notability. Google search finds plenty of evidence that the company exists, and that it advertises itself. Many of the hits are for rental of Chevrolet Impala or are not in-depth coverage. Article consists largely of puffery, such as factoids about philanthropy.

The history is that the author submitted Draft:Impala Car Rental, which was declined, and the author was asked about conflict of interest. Rather than reply to the inquiry about conflict of interest, the author created the article in article space, and then stopped editing. Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason for deletion of the article, only a reason why it should have been reviewed in article space and why the author should have waited for approval. Lack of notability is a reason for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they are a big deal in Zimbabwe and have expanded to other areas. The subject passes WP:N. The Herald, Pazimbabwe, The Standard, All Africa, Auto Guide, Business Times Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Being a "big deal" and "expanding in other areas" are not criteria for keeping this article. Looking at the references you've listed:
  - The reference from The Herald mentions the company once. In a list with other car rental companies. It is a mere mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  - The Pazimbabwe reference is about Impala gifting a jazz singer (who was just appointed as a "brand ambassador" for the company) a car (whose father was also a "brand ambassador" for the company). There is no information on the company and it is not significant coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  - The Standard reference is a press release/company announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
  - All Africa, The Auto Guide reference isn't even about this company but about a Chevrolet vehicle with the same name.
  - The Business Times reference reference is a press release/company announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Those references all fail the criteria for establishing notability, not even close. One isn't even about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are spammy PR and corporate announcements. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage relating to event sponsorship, "brand ambassadors", etc. falls under the "brief or passing mentions" category of trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The article contains routine announcement coverage which helps to confirm this as a company going about its business in its area market but I am not seeing evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 14:25, 2 April 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawley, Idaho[edit]

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

It's well-nigh impossible to do any effective searching for a feature named after a prominent governor, especially since there seem to be half a dozen other such features, but in any case the article text gives it away: it was and is a rail siding, and nothing more, sandwiched between two very large farms. Mangoe (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hawley once had a post office (or at least a postmaster at the time), had a railroad station that served nearby farms, and was cited as the residence of a woman in a 1912 newspaper. That seems like pretty solid evidence to me that this was at one point considerably more than a railroad siding. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the information provided by TheCatalyst31. It was a real population center, important enough to have a post office. Being difficult to perform cursory research does not mean we should automatically waive the belief in the existence of such a topic. Oakshade (talk) 22:46, 26 March 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) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Hahn[edit]

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

Hahn lacks what would be considered to be multiple significant roles in notable productions. The two sources that are in any way indepdent and reliable amount to only extremely passing mentions of her and are not enough to pass GNG John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject's main role in Adventures in Babysitting and her recurring role in American Housewife (TV series) may suffice to meet criterion 1 of WP:NACTOR. As for WP:GNG, most of the sources I am finding provide mere mentions—but there are quite a few of them, in reliable sources like Deadline, The New Indian Express, and The Hans India (in addition to those already provided in the article). I've also found an E! Online article which then provides a link to a filmed interview with the subject (and other colleagues) regarding Adventures in Babysitting: https://www.eonline.com/news/775625/has-disney-channel-s-adventures-in-babysitting-cast-even-seen-the-original. This article was probably created a bit prematurely, but I don't think deletion is necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as WP:TOOSOON. Wait until she lands another major role. Adventures in Babysitting film isn't headlining, but could count towards one. She really needs lead roles like with Olivia Rodrigo and Bizaardvark and High School Musical: The Series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per her significant roles in television - she passes WP:NACTOR#1. Sources exist to demonstrate notability. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What significant roles? The one television film? Need at least two where she is star billing and in something major. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, she also had a recurring role in the TV series, American Housewife, which arguably goes towards criterion 1 of NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 24 March 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 Wilkie v. Robbins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Frank Robbins[edit]

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

This article is really a summary of a set of court cases involving one individual, with refs mainly to primary sources. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The SCOTUS case in question has its own article: Wilkie v. Robbins. -kyykaarme (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Perhaps a redirect is a good outcome then? Mccapra (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article on the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 26 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists influenced by Britney Spears[edit]

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

All the artists listed fit on the main article's Legacy section. Most are already there. 90% of the article is just fillers...and no references. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Examples without references (we need to avoid primary sources later) and yes, all of these examples can be added in the Legacy section of her main article. --Chrishonduras (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "influenced" is too hazy a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britney Spears#Legacy, where this topic is already well covered, and content can be WP:SMERGEd there if appropriate. Deleting outright is not a valid option as this is a viable search term and likely to be recreated under this title. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree with the voter above on the likelihood of this title being used as a search term, as I don't really imagine a lot of people doing it. We can leave that to the admins. Otherwise I agree with everyone above that this list article uses poorly-defined parameters and is dependent on hearsay. Confirmed cases of musicians claiming to have been influenced by Spears can be (and already are) covered at Britney Spears#Legacy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone created it under that title and others have edited it, and it's not unique (do a search for the first five words or check out Special:Prefixindex/List of artists influenced by). So long as some people would look for it, it has value as a redirect. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 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) 19:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathivanan Sakthivel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has been written for promotional purposes as WP:PROMO. I suspect that the author of this article Sakthiscreens has close connection with the subject.and it is possibly an autobiography of the author himself. Abishe (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What little content the article has is promotional. No significant coverage by any English WP:RS (not familiar with Tamil to check for sources in that language). SerChevalerie (talk) 19:24, 24 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware County Youth Initiative[edit]

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

I'm not finding any coverage of this organization at all. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Article unsourced. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 24 March 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) 19:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polnet Communications[edit]

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

= No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. BEFORE shows only few mentions in passing, primarily routine press releases (mergers, acquisitions, etc.). No in-depth coverage. Non news/PR coverage is limited to single in-passing mention in minor scholarly article ([26]) which does not discuss it in depth, just acknowledges its existence in passing. I don't think that's enough. While a merge has been suggested, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Kotaba. Hopefully we don't nd up with two AfDs closed with the verdict 'not notable, merge to one another'. I think neither the company nor its owner is notable, unfortunately. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few FCC documents and memorandum orders about the station. I already added them in the article. Those sources make the article good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ICE T: I am sorry but FCC documents about routine operations such as business licences are PRIMARY and in no way estabilish notability. You might as well argue that someone is notable because we found their birth certificate or employment contract. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I withdraw my vote (for now) since this is linked to this one. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company fails WP:NCORP due to lacking in-depth coverage in multiple secondary sources. FCC filings don't work as a notability source since they are trivial coverage that every radio station has to file. Plus, the citation doesn't add anything to the article anyway because it was just added on to a sentence that already had two citations. Which is semi (in an extremely minor way) ref bombing. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 31 March 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with associated hip hop songs[edit]

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

Despite appearing to be a group of well-compiled charts, these are really arbitrary lists; and there doesn't appear to be any kind of consensus for the determination of the listed guidelines. Also, I have no idea where the bar graph at the top of the article came from. (I didn't give any kind of notification because the creator hasn't been on Wikipedia since 2017; and there are no real regular contributors to the article.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR, lack of references, and by the same logic as WP:OCASSOC for categories. 71.11.167.20 (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much WP:OR and redundant listings. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It says In order to be included, the song must have been recorded expressly for the film or the film's soundtrack. So just rename it List of hip hop songs written for a film Dream Focus 16:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but as I asked in my rationale, who decided that rule? There is no discussion about it on the talk page or anything. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you disagree with it then start a discussion on the talk page. It simply explains what the page was created for. You can't really create a talk page for a page before you create the page itself. Dream Focus 17:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, WP:CONSENSUS. A user can't just arbitrarily set a guideline. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rules state you should tell the creater of the article its up for deletion. You had time to mention you didn't do it, the same amount of time it would've taken to actually do it. I went ahead and informed them. Dream Focus 16:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it says "While not required..." which, btw, I already explained in my rationale. I generally notify the creator anyway except in cases where the creator appears to have left Wikipedia, which indeed appears to be the case here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either rename List of hip hop songs written for films or merge to List of songs written for films, but in either case ditch the ones without articles or sources documenting their originality. Songs written for films are a notable topic, e.g. Billboard's "Top 50 Movie Songs Of All Time", Business Insider's (?!) "The 25 best ever songs made for movies, ranked", plus there's the Academy Award for Best Original Song and Category:Songs written for films. I'm not sure if a particular genre needs its own list, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My god that graph is horrible OR! As noted the name is simply wrong, but there are lots of songs in Category:Songs written for films, which is of course only those with individual articles for the songs. Unclear why this would be the only genre here; unclear criteria with many of those listed not having articles, but clearly incomplete. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR listcruft. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:19, 27 March 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) 02:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Communist Party of Italy[edit]

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

This tiny party, which no longer seems active, should be the continuation of the Communist Organization of Italy (Marxist-Leninist), a right-wing split from the Communist Party of Italy (Marxist-Leninist). However, it does not appear to have any encyclopedic relevance. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is somewhat expanded and better referenced now. Whilst PCUd'I was a minor faction in Italian politics, it was prominently featured in China and Cambodia at the time, being received by high-level government officials. Contemporary Chinese (and presumably Cambodian) media gave prominent coverage to the party at the time. --Soman (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to FTSE Group. Given there's not much, if anything, in the article that can be effectively merged with FTSE Group I've read this discussion as being more in favour of deletion. However, FTSE Group is a reasonable redirect target so I'll create that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FTSEurofirst Index Series[edit]

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

Does not include sources, and does not seem notable. Scaledish (Chances are I am wrong, sorry :blush:) (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nn & spammy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge and rdirect there's an obvious merge to FTSE Group DGG ( talk ) 11:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:17, 24 March 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. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Iran[edit]

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

The article is not notable enough for a standalone article. Possible redirect or merge to target Demographics of Iran which already has a section which covers this topic. Lightburst (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:16, 24 March 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. There is a consensus that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF, partially per the argument presented by David Eppstein around WP:PROF#C1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Peumans[edit]

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

Doesn't meet criteria of WP:NACADEMICS Although has plenty of citations, no independent coverage. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tricky one because he does clearly meet WP:PROF#C1 for his academic citations but has left academia and the article is almost entirely about his post-academic career. Or more to the point, what's there uses his post-academic career as a WP:SOAPBOX to branch off into a lot of stuff that isn't about him at all. So what's there is not notable and what's notable isn't there. If this is kept it needs to be stubbed down, but even to do that would require having a little in-depth sourcing on his academic career; we can't base an article on citation counts alone. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Updated article and added doi sources. ^[1]^[2]

Jacobmcpherson (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles by the subject of the article don't usually demonstrate notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Peumans, Peter; Uchida, Soichi; Forrest, Stephen R. (2003). "Efficient bulk heterojunction photovoltaic cells using small-molecular-weight organic thin films". Nature. 425 (6954): 158–162. doi:10.1038/nature01949. ISSN 0028-0836.
^ Peumans, Peter; Yakimov, Aharon; Forrest, Stephen R. (2003). "Small molecular weight organic thin-film photodetectors and solar cells". Journal of Applied Physics. 93 (7): 3693–3723. doi:10.1063/1.1534621. ISSN 0021-8979.

Delete per WP:TNT. The immediate restoration of the problematic promotionalism after XOR'easter removed it does not inspire confidence in me that this can be kept in a good state without long-term protection and a sufficient number of watchlisters, and I don't really see the point in making that effort for what is at best a borderline academic permastub. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It includes a citation from VRT, one of the national publications of Belgium Jacobmcpherson (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject was also assigned a Wikidata number (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q88385220), and no alternatives to the proposed text have been presented Jacobmcpherson (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You only need to say "keep" once. Being assigned a Wikidata number is not evidence of notability; it just means that a Wikipedia article exists. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources about the company say little to nothing about Peumans as a person. ~~No indication that Peumans passes WP:PROF for his time in academia or WP:GNG for his work after.~~ There's an argument to be made that he passes WP:PROF#C1 on citations alone, but this is one of those cases where there is so little to say apart from the citation record that writing an article on that basis would be well-nigh impossible. There's no indication of passing WP:PROF on other counts (which would help us say what was actually meaningful about his academic career based on the judgment of his community), nor is there any indication of passing WP:GNG for his work after. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHe is heavily cited on Google Scholar - ^[1]. According to several sources, he developed several efficient solar cell device architectures and contributed to the current understanding of the mechanisms present in organic solar cells. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jacobmcpherson: As you have already been told, the AfD procedure only allows one boldfaced opinion per editor. If you have additional points to make that you missed in your previous comments, you can make them, but not with a new "keep" opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 24 publications indexed by Google Scholar

Delete Assistant professors who quit or otherwise leave are held to a high standard indeed for WP:NPROF. The activities for the company don't look to yet be notable. Comment that there are signs of WP:PAIDCOI. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Oman[edit]

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

The article has been a stub for years, and there is not enough RS to show that the subject is notable. If deletion is not the will of the community - perhaps a merge to Demographics of Oman Lightburst (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree the article needs work, but I still believe it's a notable topic with wide scope to merit a page. I think 230,000 is a pretty large immigrant population for a country of Oman's size. Mar4d (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mar4d. There is a long history of co-operation between Pakistan Armed Forces and Royal Oman Forces. To me, it is a legit and expandable. Störm (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep rational of Mar4d seems to be valid. Nannadeem (talk) 23:07, 1 April 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anne Mercy Hospital[edit]

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

Most hospitals do meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG (see WP:HOSPITAL) but I couldn't find the sources to show this one does. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also came up blank. Doesn't appear to have any coverage, so doesn't meet notability guidelines. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:48, 24 March 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. -- ferret (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Woman[edit]

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

After removal of a Washington Post blog source which cites a website of dubious credentials, this article is left with one secondary source: an SMH blog which does not provide depth of coverage. The article makes some dubious claims: its number of downloads, for some reason listed under "In popular culture", is not verifiable; the lead calls it the "oldest form of virtual life", which is ridiculous. It also includes a lot of personal opinion under "Criticisms". I can find no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Bilorv (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:14, 24 March 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. I'm aware of the notification left by Cewbot, but a review of the two very old AFDs show that no policy based arguments to Keep were presented in those AFDs. (To clarify, NOQUORUM allows for the deletion of this article as per the nomination statement, and I would have, but the 2007 AFDs are so improper that I'm going the softer route, WP:IAR) -- ferret (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia Applications Development Environment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG / WP:NSOFT; very little results. Engine used in four games, three of which have articles. Not sure which to redirect. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2007-05 ✓ keep, 2007-03 ✓ Keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:14, 24 March 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 Canadian voice actors#O. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Oliver[edit]

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

Fails notability standard for people/actors and general notability.. Article is a one sentence unsourced mini-bio followed by list of roles, most unsourced. Sources that exist are not reliable. Previously speedied in 2010 and recreation PRODded in 2012. Time has not improved available sources or notability. Suggest that article be salted if deleted. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ ~~Weak Keep~~ Weak Delete or Redirect or Draftify: I'm really struggling to find coverage on the subject. I hope someone can find some sources, because she has done a lot of work—enough to justify an article, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have upgraded my vote in view of the fact that she won a Behind the Voice Actors award in 2016 (https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/btva-awards/2016/television/). Sources are still sorely needed, however, so I might change my vote again if no progress is made in that respect. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd update: Given that no further progress has been made in regard to sources, I have amended my vote again, to reflect the possibility of "Redirecting" or "Draftifying", as proposed by Spectrum. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find RS, and this article is, at best, a stub of a non-notable person. --Dreamanderson (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning redirect to List of Canadian voice actors#O as not all entries there are bluelinked, and roles indicate WP:LSC is likely satisfied; with ECP applied to prevent tendentious recreation. However, there seems to be some conjecture above that sources will eventually be found, in which case it can be converted to a userspace draft to work on until the sourcing is good enough to pass through the AFC process, and moved in over redirect. Pinging Dflaw4 to see if there is any interest in hosting this in userspace. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum, I would support your suggestion of Redirecting. To be honest, I'm not sure how successful a more thorough search for sources may be—although, that being said, I don't think there'd be any harm in Draftifying the article. I don't know that I would be the right person to host it in my userspace, however, because I don't think I'll be able to work on it all the much. But, if there are no other candidates, I guess I could host it. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Canadian voice actors#O per above. It's only a moderately likely search term but redirects are cheap. It also has the advantage that if Dflaw4 or anyone else eventually wants to work on it, the page history will be there so it can be copied to a user-sandbox so long as WP:CWW is adhered to. Having thought it over I'm not sure about what if any level of protection is appropriate given that the disruption is long-past and so it may run afoul of the policy against preemptive protection, so I'll leave that to the discretion of the closing admin, and offer no opinion either way. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there seems to be consensus to redirect to List of Canadian voice actors#O. However, it's not clear to me that the list accepts non-notable entries (at the moment all links are blue). And if the consensus on that list is/would be to not accept non-notable entries then you have a redirect to nowhere so I am reluctant to close that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Barkeep49: If you look at all entries in List of Canadian voice actors, you will notice many are not blue-linked starting with Drew Adkins, so it appears WP:LSC is met, although I'm unfamiliar with all the discussions resulting in that decision. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 21:25, 4 April 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. HighKing's in-depth analysis of sources shows that they do not meet WP:ORGCRIT and therefore do not support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Goo[edit]

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

This topic doesn't have mention media mentions in highly reliable source Random 456576798 (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC) — Random 456576798 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment If deleted, should it be redirected to Green slime or elsewhere as a synonym? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a pointless article Dreamanderson (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Citations to the Denver Post, ~~Forbes~~ and the local ABC and Fox affiliates are in the article; the first three have significant coverage of the company (I cannot check the Fox one because of GDPR). Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP to me. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC) (Edited 15:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC), see reply below.) Delete per HighKing below: the sources don't meet the requirements for WP:NCORP. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The forbes' article is from contributor, hence can't be used in Wikipedia as per community guideline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and beside denver post, local ABC and fox affiliates are also not considered as reliable source Random 456576798 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Random 456576798: Thanks for the point about Forbes, you're right. Could you expand on why you don't consider the other sources reliable? YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, I've provided reasoning for each reference below. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, Thanks, you make good points. Have changed my !vote. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page does have good coverage on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:2115:C674:0:0:16D6:E0AD (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC) — 2409:4052:2115:C674:0:0:16D6:E0AD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Articles are reliable and company got enough coverage. I will suggest to make article better rather than deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 13:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage appears sufficient (though mostly local, which is fine). Delete, based on User:HighKing's very good breakdown. Jlevi (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The reasons provided above miss the point. Getting "coverage" or that "coverage appears sufficient" does not address the criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:NCORP, there must be 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. Looking at the references:
- This from The Denver Post is based on information provided by the company and contains quotes from the company executives. It contains no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. The "story" published on the company can be found in a range of stories in different websites such as this company profile on Range.me and this story on Inventors Digest. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- I cannot find mention of the company in the referenced article in Global Traveler but the company gets a mention-in-passing in this article. No company details, not significant coverage, no Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
- The Forbes reference fails WP:RS as it considered a blog post. Even if it wasn't, it is churnalism and relies entirely on an interview with the founder, failing WP:ORGIND
- This from Investors Digest (as I noted above) relies on information provided by the company to a range of different publications, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Home Business Mag is also churnalism and is mostly a copy from their "About Us" page and the same information pack used by the other articles above with a sprinkling from one of the customers "Fresh Eggs Daily" who often promote Green Goo on their facebook page. No Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Luxe Beat is paid promotion by the company. It uses phrases like Once subscribed to GooRu, you will receive $100 worth of products for $29.97 as our "Thank You" for joining our cause for your first month. Fails WP:ORGIND
- This from St. Louis Post Dispatch is a paid promotion (Ad) for their "Outdoors Travel Pack". It contains no information on the company at ll. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- This from CBS Denver is based on an interview with the CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Times-Call is based on a company announcement and relies entirely on information provided by the cofounder and the company. Fails WP:ORGIND

None of the references meet the requirements for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any references that are OK for this purpose. Topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this highly in-depth breakdown. It gives me some important features to look for in future deletion discussions, and I appreciate you taking the time to lay it all out. Jlevi (talk) 16:42, 31 March 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] Gokulsing, K. Moti; Dissanayake, Wimal (2013). Routledge Handbook of Indian Cinemas. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-77291-7.

[2] Matkari, Ganesh MatkariGanesh (22 September 2017). "FILM: NADI VAHATE". Pune Mirror. Retrieved 26 March 2020.

[3] "Sujay Dahake's statement sparks debate about preferentialism in the Marathi industry - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 26 March 2020.

[4] "I always felt out of place with my theatre friends, says Sujay Dahake". Hindustan Times. 10 March 2019.

[5] "Sujay Dahake on his Tujhya Aaila being selected for IFFI's Indian Panorama". The Indian Express. 21 October 2019.

[PeumansUchida2003-6] Peumans, Peter; Uchida, Soichi; Forrest, Stephen R. (2003). "Efficient bulk heterojunction photovoltaic cells using small-molecular-weight organic thin films". Nature. 425 (6954): 158–162. doi:10.1038/nature01949. ISSN 0028-0836.

[PeumansYakimov2003-7] Peumans, Peter; Yakimov, Aharon; Forrest, Stephen R. (2003). "Small molecular weight organic thin-film photodetectors and solar cells". Journal of Applied Physics. 93 (7): 3693–3723. doi:10.1063/1.1534621. ISSN 0021-8979.

[8] Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 24 publications indexed by Google Scholar

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]