Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 March	26 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 delete. Sandstein 07:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Alhammad[edit]

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

Non-notable professor, he haven't placed or won any notable awards, and there is only one source, and it is from the university itself, and it is permanent dead link, it has also been deleted on ar.wiki. Fails WP:N. Faisal ^talk 23:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Faisal ^talk 23:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Faisal ^talk 23:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Notable Resources. Does not goes with the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NPROF, the subject must meet one of eight criteria. My assessment of those criteria is as follows:

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. N
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. N
The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). N
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. ?
The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. N
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. N
The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. N
The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. N

--Kbabej (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The subject fails WP:NPROF.--KartikeyaS (talk) 07:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just doesn't cut it per WP:NPROF. ~riley (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed teacher turned middle-level administrator, one of tens of thousands around the World. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:29, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randheer Rai[edit]

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

Bit-part actor with no reliable independent sources. Guy (help!) 21:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has no reliable sources. Some of them are plot summaries for the films he was in, and one of them is IMDB. Also, it is almost impossible to figure out what the article is about without rewriting it. Analog Horror, (Speak) 23:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Person is well known in India, but references are not enough here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 09:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I don't know if there is a consensus regarding the reliability of Bombay Times; the two articles provided don't seem too bad, but do have a bit of an interview style about them. I found some additional sources:

→https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Cinema/2019-01-05/Randheer-Rai-essaying-a-dark-role-in-Jiji-Maa/469627 – The Hans India

→https://www.mid-day.com/articles/tvs-randheer-rai-to-star-opposite-mahie-gill/21390185 – Mid-day.com; again, I don't know if there is a consensus for this news outlet

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/jiji-maa-actor-randheer-rai-blessed-with-a-baby-girl/articleshow/70095077.cms – Times of India; while we now need to be more careful with Times of India articles, there doesn't seem anything inherently problematic with this one; the topic of the article (the birth of the subject's child) is a little frivolous, but it does also mention some of the subject's work

While this coverage might not be enough to meet WP:GNG, it's certainly getting close, I think. As for WP:NACTOR, I wouldn't describe the subject as a bit-part actor, as he has had supporting roles in a number of films and TV shows, which I think is enough to get him over the line. I agree with the comment above that the page itself needs to be cleaned up, and I am happy to do that (if the article remains). Dflaw4 (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR.--KartikeyaS (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:57, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tum Se Hi[edit]

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

Reason North8000 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review. No indication of notability. Zero references (the one "reference" is a link to the song/video). Has been tagged since December 2019 for wp:notability with no real changes. This is a three sentence article on a song from a movie. Suggest merging the three sentences into the article on the movie or artist or both. I would be happy to handle that if pinged. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The song fails WP:NALBUM. A Google search of it doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. The song being part of a notable film doesn't make it notable, as notability cannot be inherited. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --KartikeyaS (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:GNG, WP:MILL, and WP:SIGCOV. Songs in films are not automatically notable, even if the film it's in is notable. Lots of songs in films exist, and most, like this one, are just not notable. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verdo[edit]

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

No evidence that this supposed settlement exists. Fails WP:CRYSTAL; most sources cited do not mention "Verdo" by name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It exists (or will), but it's a housing development with pure puffery of calling themselves a neighborhood or settlement. Not seeing notability for this real estate spam. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as South China Morning Post-friendly spam; most of the article relies on inherited notability, such as Kew Bridge station...which was there 170 years sooner. ——SN 54129 16:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill housing development, nothing to suggest it has any special attributes which give it notability. Neiltonks (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable housing development. –dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be just the promotional name of a new housing development, not an actual place name. MarkSG (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --KartikeyaS (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and clearly promotional in nature. ~riley (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV, WP:SPAM, and my own standards. No clear notability. It seems to be a run of the mill newly-built housing estate. There are tens of thousands in England alone, and we can't list every one. The sources are sketchy. It is written as a real estate ad, not an article. This fails my standards - there's no evidence it even has 4,000 inhabitants, and is smaller than some barangays in Manila, each of which elects its own mayor. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 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 delete. I have to disregard the input by Mr. Fixsen per WP:COI, and it's otherwise unanimous that we don't want to keep this around. It can be draftified via WP:REFUND if somebody uninvolved wants to work on it. Sandstein 07:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fixsen[edit]

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

I believe this BLP fails GNG and WP:BAND. It realies heavily on primary sources and a WP:BEFORE search finds nothing of significance. Since its creation in 2008, this article has lacked sources HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a first time user of WP and the subject of this BLP. I did not create the BLP although I did try to edit it for the first time recently, which I now understand was a mistake! Incidentally, something has gone wrong as a paragraph of this BLP wasn deleted yesterday before the deletion process has concluded. I don't think it should be deleted as I am a fairly well-known and influential musician and producer of the nineties and 00s and currently known for my recent film work also I think the information it contains is useful to people interested in some of the bands I worked with (Radiohead, My_Bloody_Valentine_(band), Pixies_(band), Stereolab, Fiona_Apple et. al.)
Some possible sources which also show that the BLP does not fail GNG:

https://www.factmag.com/2009/10/22/warp-to-release-loneladys-debut-7-and-lp/
https://www.fastcompany.com/1682420/how-a-classic-is-created-my-bloody-valentine-and-the-making-of-loveless
http://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/papagajka-the-parrot
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3901465/
https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/laika/Content?oid=887955
https://www.allmusic.com/artist/guy-fixsen-mn0000543985
https://www.discogs.com/artist/256670-Guy-Fixsen?filter_anv=0&type=Credits
https://www.thedayjob.com/guyfixsen
https://www.soundsbetterwithreverb.com/classic/laika-silver-apples/
https://www.metfilmschool.ac.uk/profiles/guy-fixsen/
Cavanagh, David (2000). The Creation Records Story: My Magpie Eyes Are Hungry for the Prize. London: Virgin. ISBN 978-0-753-50645-5. - Several quotes from me in this e.g. page 359
https://www.psychedelicbabymag.com/2016/10/mark-fry-interview-dreaming-with-alice.html
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EYlQ2Hsft8QC&pg=PA96&dq=Guy+Fixsen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi69ZqooLvoAhVKa8AKHbZcBhIQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=Guy%20Fixsen&f=false
Loveless_(album)
https://www.aginfoconsult.nl/joris/nummernegentien.txt
https://www.brainwashed.com/brain/brainv06i03.html

The BLP does not fail WP:BAND as my band Laika_(band), released 4 studio albums and one retrospective compilation on Beggars_Banquet_Records which is a major independent label. One album was released in the US by American_Recordings_(record_label) and two by Sire_Records - as this page from Billboard shows: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mBAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=Sire+records+Laika&source=bl&ots=ZjCUFuPV0o&sig=ACfU3U3MkM1jsIRfFKH_rg2mihhM5Nw1WQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw9IGen7voAhXQi1wKHdMzB6UQ6AEwCXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Sire%20records%20Laika&f=false

Guyfixsen (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per norms because of WP:COI. It needs to go through via WP:AFC.--KartikeyaS (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and WP:MUSICBIO. Let's be blunt. In 2008, we would have excused this, but it's 2020, and everybody knows Wikipedia is a charity and an encyclopedia, not the successor to MySpace. The creator of the article admits it is his autobiography! To assert that this spam is otherwise is bullocks. To claim to be a first-time user is not an excuse; in fact, as a new fiduciary, it's worse. The list of possible sources are terrible - not one is reliable. Therefore, there is a lack of significant coverage, the cornerstone of notability. There are lots of musicians, and we can't list every single one. If he had toured around the world, or was a one-hit wonder, or was a member of a famous band, I'd argue to merge or keep. As a failed musician myself, I have sympathy. I have lots of friends who are technicians, but my college classmate does not rate her own article because she used to set up Pat Metheny's synthclavier. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that a major guideline of WP is to be polite in these discussions and calling someone a 'failed musician' in this tone doesn't really sound like someone who takes reasoned debate seriously. In fact, contrary to what Bearian says, I HAVE toured around the world, several times. Sometimes as a headliner and sometimes with bands such as Radiohead (who also stated at one point my music was a major influence on a well-known song of theirs, "Morning Bell") Fiona Apple and a host of other notables. I was the main engineer on one of the most important albums of the nineties and a prolific key producer in a scene called 'shoegazing'. As I clearly stated that I am NOT the creator of this article. It was created in 2008 and I only became a Wikipedian last week. And how weird to consider yourself an 'editor' and yet not be able to spell the word "B*llocks"... Anyway, I am mentioned in a bunch of articles on WP so I would have thought it would make sense for those links to lead somewhere and if someone wants to put the BLP into order I am sure, given some guidance, I could assist by providing sources that are in keeping with WP protocolsGuyfixsen (talk) 21:27, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Crouch[edit]

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

Crouch was the winner of a state contest. In general deletion outcomes suggest only winners of national level contests are notable. The sources here are a hyper local paper, her college's paper (which we almost never count for notability of students or faculty) and the website of the contest she won. Nothing close to notability. There is a claim of a discussion on merging, but I see no evidence there was ever an actual discussion John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I went to notify the article creator I realized that I am the article creator. I did not understand Wikipedia notability as well back in 2009 as I do today, and the rules of notability were more lax back then. This feels like going full circle back to my July 2016 nomination of the article on Sloan Bailey for deletion. The one difference is that I personally knew Sloan Bailey and have not to my knowledge ever personally met Crouch, however beyond that detail the situation is relatively the same. It is also a little different since Bailey did not actually complete her time as Miss Nevada USA (and also by some measure Miss America is more notable than Miss USA), but since except rare hyper local coverage all the coverage we get at all on state pageant winners is focused on when they are crowned and not their "reign", I do not think that detail makes the two cases significantly different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Otr500 (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed to satisfy WP:GNG---Richie Campbell (talk) 03:48, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiveable[edit]

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

WP:MILL, this social learning platform has not yet gotten significant independant coverage. Two short mentions in independant sources, mentioned in a large resource list from Today.com [1], and mentioned in passing here. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete, clearly not notable yet, but might be in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:04, 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 National research and education network. Sandstein 07:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PerfSONAR[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National research and education network as I’m. It sure this piece of software is notable on its own. Mccapra (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agreed with Mccapra. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:08, 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. Sandstein 07:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and the "Other" in Syrian School Textbooks[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can’t find any RIS to support it. Mccapra (talk) 01:40, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 06:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Paul Miller[edit]

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

~~I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:AUTHOR/WP:POET. His book The Seventies Now was reviewed in American Literature[2], Modern Fiction Studies[3], the Journal of American Studies[4], the San Francisco Chronicle[5] and the Utne Reader[6]. His book Skinny Eighth Avenue was reviewed in the Boston Review[7], Minnesota Review[8], and Brooklyn Rail[9]. He has an entry in the Encyclopedia of the New York School Poets[10] and has been anthologized in The Bloomsbury Anthology of Contemporary Jewish American Poetry[11] and The Best American Poetry, 1994[12]. This is just a quick look at a couple of his books and a couple of anthology appearances, but I think there are more reviews of his other books out there. Many of them cited in the exhaustive bio on the St. John's University web site.[13].--Jahaza (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent comments above; clearly my misjudgement. Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 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. Sandstein 07:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fateh Muhammad Khan Karelvi[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence to establish he meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources could be found in the article. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that much is obvious, unless anyone can provide better bibliographical information for the sources supplied. The question that needs to be answered here is whether anyone can find a source outside the article to confirm the claim of passing WP:NPOL . Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the claim is that the subject was a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Praja Sabha (People's Assembly), elected in 1935. Additional help may be necessary to verify the claim. --Enos733 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I previously put this up for PROD (reverted) because I couldn’t find anything when I searched in Urdu. Mccapra (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL. No sign of holding any significant position. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of RIS. Mccapra (talk) 01:41, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Olsson[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. All the articles sources are either created by the subject or is a results table and he doesn't satifsy WP:NMOTOR (the only other thing you could qualify for notability under) I don't see any evidence to suggest that he is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.
SSSB (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SSSB (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing isn't even about him but to routine directory entries of event results. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable driver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as of right now it is not notable enough for inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has won several competitions including the Swedish Karting Championship. Sources may exist in Swedish language. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:19, 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. Sandstein 08:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Commando Films[edit]

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

Article about an Indian film production company. It claims to be "one of the largest film studios in India" but that claim is dubious since the company has currently produced one film and one web series (it also has a planned film for 2022). I had to clean up the references (in particular because some were the same blurb of text on four different websites) and what remains consists of articles focused on the three projects mentioned above and not on the company. I was unable to find significant coverage of the company in reliable online sources. Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The production company is a notable company has produced web series, films and short movies such as Super Laundeys (web series), 3D Night, Victoria Cross and Gabbar Singh Negi. The article has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as:

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Tbt1849 (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your list of films produced by the company is a bit misleading. Victoria Cross and Gabbar Singh Negi are not films. The company has a project for 2022 which would be a film about the life of Victoria Cross recipient Gabbar Singh Negi. Pichpich (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I went through most the sources. All the ones I checked where about the web series and had trivial coverage of the company. People clearly don't seem to get the difference between notability of a company and the notability of a product made by a company. Which are two completely different things. In this case the company obviously isn't notable. Neither is the web series IMO, but it doesn't matter to this AfD if it is or not. As far as the references provided by the person above my vote, 7 of them appear to be to the same two sources (that I'm pretty are already in the article) just re-posted to news sharing sites like Flipboard to make it seem like there's broad coverage when there isn't. Which is both ref bombing and semi insulting to the process of determining notability. As if people wouldn't check the sources or notice it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The production Company is a notable company has produced web series, films and short movies such as The article has enough citations on trusted reliable, independent resources such as:

~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshuharariya (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the user behind this vote is a just created account that has only edited the same two articles Tbt1849 has, my guess is that its probably a shill account of that user (who is probably an un-disclosed paid editor) so both their votes should be ignored and Tbt1849 should be banned for shilling if that's what is going on. Adamant1 (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:21, 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. – bradv🍁 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janmabhumi[edit]

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

An article about non notable website janmabhumidaily.com and an epaper generated from its contents. Kutyava (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage outside Wikipedia. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 04:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Janmabhumi is the most popular Malayalam language daily newspaper.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 07:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the popularity with evidence.Kutyava (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I must confess I am trying to work out if there are AfD & tagging wars going on between various factions on the Indian Subcontinent at the moment but I can't prove it and whatever. Anyway this publiciation seem to have some substance. As far as I can work out Janmabhumi translates to birthplace which results in a lot of false hists to work through, but I note the following source: [34]. Its not so say the article doesn't have quality issues but in general I get concerned when publications are up at AfD. 21:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tentatively. The paper seems to have existed in Kerala for about 50 years now. Politically, it is a BJP mouthpiece. For example, according to Times of India, a BJP MP advertised their criminal cases in this newspaper. It is harder to find sources about newspapers in India, particular those outside of metro cities. I suggest keeping this, but cleaning the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whilst it is difficult to find sources in English about the newspaper (most are in Malayalam), there are a few sources I found which do indicate that it is indeed a notable newspaper. ([35], [36]) --RaviC (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No significant coverage outside Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. Authordom (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is being reopened and relisted per conversation at User_talk:Missvain#Closure_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janmabhumi. The nominator (User:Kutyava) and User:Authordom) has a Arbcom discussion in place and this is just routine. Please check out the publication with a neutral eye to make sure it passes our notability guidelines. We have struck Authordom's !vote from this nomination. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be clear: I remain with keep and have more RL things to deal with than this car-crash of a re-opened AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability: We have a draft guideline for notability for newspapers, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Newspapers/Notability. This would be a good test of these guidelines. At a minimum, the newspapers should appear on the List of Malayalam-language newspapers, where it is listed now. G. Moore 12:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou I've included WikiProject Newspapers on the article talk page. Some of those guidelines look excellent. I am really concerned about how Newspaper/Media articles are being wiped from Wikipedia at AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Keep per DreamLinker. Regards.. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:57, 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. Sandstein 08:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Manor, Indiana[edit]

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

Small neighborhood built between 1954 and 1964, no sign of passing Geoland2; only archive results are in the home classifieds as an "Addition" during this construction period. Reywas92^Talk 18:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 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. Sandstein 08:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hildebrand Village, Indiana[edit]

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

Small subdivision within incorporated Shelbyville, Indiana, fails Geoland2. Built between 1954 and 1964, only archive result is a Shelbyville wedding announcement Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign that this subdivision is an officially-recognized place, no significant coverage to meet GNG. Reviewing the previous AfD, most of the KEEP !votes were based on fallacious arguments such as speculation that it could have been an independent community at one time (no evidence for this, apparently it was built in the 1950s-60s); appearance in various listings (maps/databases do not establish notability, and many simply use GNIS for location data); and that nobody has demonstrated that it's not notable (no, the onus to demonstrate notability is on editors wishing to include content.) –dlthewave ☎ 16:48, 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. Sandstein 08:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noel de Lesseps[edit]

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

Child of a former reality-TV star; lacks the depth-of-coverage needed for WP:BIO, just simple mentions in "where are they now" gossip magazine articles. Prod was contested. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure what this person might be notable for: a)son of someone who was on the Real Housewives, b) a painter who has had what appears to be one show, c) someone descended from notability or money, or d) someone who sued over an inheritance? it all adds up to a bunch of minor unimportant tidbits. Our core principle is that we cover notable topics, and he does not seem to be one. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing here to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the son of … does not make one notable. Our standards for inclusion for artists are higher than for most other occupations, (don't get me started) but this subject doesn't come remotely to meeting any of them. One exhibition, "a spring art show"? I think what they mean is the Spring/break Art Show 2020 in New York, three weeks ago [37], where he he sold a piece that was "curated" by Nicole Nadeau [38] a former contestant in Work of Art: The Next Great Artist. The coverage is idiotic. The guy has a "professional website", "because would you expect anything less from the Countess's kids?" (per popsugar). No amount of coverage in gossip websites is going to fix the lack of any notable accomplishments or even just a body of work. Vexations (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OUTCOMES. It's well settled that except for royalty, "notability is not inherited by nobility." Likewise, in reality shows, not every person who appears in the show is automatically notable; only the top three contestants, hosts, protagonists and antagonists are notable. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 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 merge to Rundle Park (Edmonton). Sandstein 08:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rundle Park Disc Golf Course[edit]

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

Reason North8000 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info left at article talk page: Review under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process

Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I reviewed the article. In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on topic. No suitable coverage is included. The three given references are basically listing in on-line directories. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. Also, since it is currently a directory type listing, IMO it probably also does not meet the standards of WP:not

I have nominated the article for review under Wikipedia's "Article for Deletion" process so that the community may decide. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rundle Park (Edmonton). –dlthewave ☎ 17:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agreed. Jlevi (talk) 19:06, 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. Speedy deleted per CSD G4. This version is virtually identical to the version previously AfD'd. Since it has been created three times I have also salted it. MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Thirumala[edit]

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

Non-notable person with no reliable independent in-depth sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. None of the sources in the article establish WP:GNG. Recreated again by the same author. Previously deleted at AfD and with speedies. Current content is written from ground-up, so cannot speedy as recreation, while PROD will very likely be contested. Suggest salting. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per g4. I don't see how anything possibly changed in a month. Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 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.

Already deleted. BD2412 T 21:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have Fun Teaching[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Overly promotional press release that fails to show the WP:SIGCOV required by WP:NCORP. Only coverage I am seeing is some coverage of their product, but no direct reporting or coverage on the company itself. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom correctly asserts the promotional nature of the article. While that's strictly an argument to avoid, this is almost certainly undisclosed paid editing, and that's against the terms of use. The nom has also correctly called the failure to reach the basic notability guidelines at WP:NCORP, 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 17:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per g4. There's no point in rehashing this blatant spam again. Praxidicae (talk) 17:52, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Collection (1996 Boney M. box set)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some background for editors unfamiliar with Boney M. – I'm not sure how well known this group was in North America apart from "Rivers of Babylon", but they were enormously popular throughout Europe between 1976 and 1982. Group creator and songwriter Frank Farian is probably better known for his later manufactured act, Milli Vanilli... however, Boney M. (at least some of the group members) did actually sing on their records. However, Farian was notorious for constantly re-editing and remixing Boney M.'s songs, so that there are numerous versions of each one – this has resulted in literally dozens of compilation albums like this one, all of which have essentially the same track listings, but slightly different versions of each song. They are of interest only to completists and few of them, including this album, have any individual notability. These albums continue to be reverted by a succession of IPs when they are redirected, and so the only options are to delete, or redirect but protect the articles from being reverted yet again. Richard3120 (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. No evidence has been provided that this album appeared on a national music chart, was certified gold, or received multiple reviews or news articles in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:00, 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. Sandstein 08:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Boney M.[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some background for editors unfamiliar with Boney M. – I'm not sure how well known this group was in North America apart from "Rivers of Babylon", but they were enormously popular throughout Europe between 1976 and 1982. Group creator and songwriter Frank Farian is probably better known for his later manufactured act, Milli Vanilli... however, Boney M. (at least some of the group members) did actually sing on their records. However, Farian was notorious for constantly re-editing and remixing Boney M.'s songs, so that there are numerous versions of each one – this has resulted in literally dozens of compilation albums like this one, all of which have essentially the same track listings, but slightly different versions of each song. They are of interest only to completists and few of them, including this album, have any individual notability. These albums continue to be reverted by a succession of IPs when they are redirected, and so the only options are to delete, or redirect but protect the articles from being reverted yet again. Richard3120 (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. No evidence has been provided that these albums appeared on a national music chart, were certified gold, or received multiple reviews or news articles in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The albums fails WP:NALBUM. A Google search of the project doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUM. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:28, 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 speedy keep. Obvious bad faith, disruptive renomination. The basis that the previous discussion is not legitimate due to admin abuse is not a valid reason to renominate. Good faith concerns over whether a closer got a consensus wrong should be taken to WP:DRV, however based on the user's conduct (for which they are now blocked), it's clear that this is not the case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black supremacy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions or not addressing the topic at all. The article was last nominated for deletion in July 2018. In that AFD, the closing admin User:Sandstein was merely going by hand count rather than arguments based on policy. I ask that they recuse themselves from closing this AFD and leave it to another, preferably an admin capable of judging arguments based on policy and not hand count. There is an intense discussion going on the talk page. The possibility of merging some content to Black separatism was discussed, but consensus was not reached by the participants, and understandably so, because the two subjects are totally different, and whilst Black separatism is notable with significant coverage discussing the subject in detail, Black supremacy is not. Other the the SPLC, there is little indepth coverage of the subject. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:20, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What has changed since the last time you posted this for AFD? PackMecEng (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails GNG and SIGCOV. Never notable to begin with and you knew it despite your reverts, yet not participating in the discussion. If you believe it meets our notability guidlines, prove it with respect to policy. I'm waiting. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted once to stop your edit warring. If nothing has changed since the last one I do not see a reason for this AFD in general. PackMecEng (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would likely lean "delete" on this article. However, given the backhanded personal attack in this nomination which was part Senegambianamestudy's larger string of personal attacks (which lead to their being blocked indefinitely and TPA revoked) I believe that this AfD be closed as a procedural keep due to a bad faith nomination. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:00, 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. Sandstein 08:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Collection (Boney M. box set)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some background for editors unfamiliar with Boney M. – I'm not sure how well known this group was in North America apart from "Rivers of Babylon", but they were enormously popular throughout Europe between 1976 and 1982. Group creator and songwriter Frank Farian is probably better known for his later manufactured act, Milli Vanilli... however, Boney M. (at least some of the group members) did actually sing on their records. However, Farian was notorious for constantly re-editing and remixing Boney M.'s songs, so that there are numerous versions of each one – this has resulted in literally dozens of compilation albums like this one, all of which have essentially the same track listings, but slightly different versions of each song. They are of interest only to completists and few of them, including this album, have any individual notability. These albums continue to be reverted by a succession of IPs when they are redirected, and so the only options are to delete, or redirect but protect the articles from being reverted yet again. Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 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. Sandstein 08:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let It All Be Music – The Party Album[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: some background for editors unfamiliar with Boney M. – I'm not sure how well known this group was in North America apart from "Rivers of Babylon", but they were enormously popular throughout Europe between 1976 and 1982. Group creator and songwriter Frank Farian is probably better known for his later manufactured act, Milli Vanilli... however, Boney M. (at least some of the group members) did actually sing on their records. However, Farian was notorious for constantly re-editing and remixing Boney M.'s songs, so that there are numerous versions of each one – this has resulted in literally dozens of compilation albums like this one, all of which have essentially the same track listings, but slightly different versions of each song. They are of interest only to completists and few of them, including this album, have any individual notability. These albums continue to be reverted by a succession of IPs when they are redirected, and so the only options are to delete, or redirect but protect the articles from being reverted yet again. Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable compilation, no reviews, no chart success. I can see in the history of the page that the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal has been trying to restore this article, which makes me lean harder in the delete direction. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 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.

Already deleted. BD2412 T 21:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have Fun Teaching[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Overly promotional press release that fails to show the WP:SIGCOV required by WP:NCORP. Only coverage I am seeing is some coverage of their product, but no direct reporting or coverage on the company itself. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom correctly asserts the promotional nature of the article. While that's strictly an argument to avoid, this is almost certainly undisclosed paid editing, and that's against the terms of use. The nom has also correctly called the failure to reach the basic notability guidelines at WP:NCORP, 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 17:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per g4. There's no point in rehashing this blatant spam again. Praxidicae (talk) 17:52, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kusumber Putra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. I realise that a song originally written in 1937 and never recorded for more than 80 years is not likely to have much of an internet footprint, but there doesn't appear to be any discussion of the song in media coverage of the writer following his death in 2011, or of the 2018 recording by Jayanta Nath, outside of Mr. Nath's social media and music download sites. In fact, it's difficult to find any sources not connected to the song's writer Bhupen Hazarikar – the book cited in the sources was written by a mathematician, not a journalist, who happened to be a close friend of the songwriter [39]... the book is apparently only 32 pages long and was published by Cool Grove Publishing [40], a publishing company which was founded and is owned by Hazarikar's son [41]. The singer Jayanta Nath was also a friend of the writer, having worked with him during his lifetime – his version of the song was produced by the Bhupen Hazarikar Foundation, also set up by Hazarikar's son. A redirect to Bhupen Hazarikar would be the normal course of action here, but this song isn't mentioned anywhere in Hazarikar's article, and as stated above, the only source seems to be published by his friends and family. ~~I've tried searching for the song's title in other languages, but as it means "I love you", you can imagine that the search is a nightmare.~~ I stand corrected on this last statement, it apparently means "son of Kusumber". Richard3120 (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: the article creator has now added a book by another family member and a link to the Assamese Wikipedia, but neither of these are acceptable sources either. Richard3120 (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(transcluded from this AfD's talk page) There are sources connected to the song's writer Bhupen Hazarika, In the Assamese Wikipedia [42],which was his native language, but in the English Wikipedia it's not corrected. In the Assamese Wikipedia It is citing to a 2013 book by Surya Hazarika "Moi ati Zazabor" [ISBN:978-81-904774-6-8]. There are lyrics of the song available in many web archives [43]. There was media coverage in Assamese printed media at the time of song release. And the song doesn't mean "I love you", As it was a tribute to Assamese polymath Sankardev, "Kusumber" is his fathers name and "Putra" means son. Putukaisawesome (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Putukaisawesome: Then you need to find the coverage in printed media and cite it. The Moi eti Jajabor book is Dr. Hazarikar's autobiography, so it's not an independent source. Richard3120 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The songs does not meet any criterion of WP:NSONG. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:59, 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. Sandstein 09:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP notability guidelines. Sources are mostly local newspapers and blogs. Somehow the New York Times and Washington post are included as sources, yet the linked articles have no mention of the winery. Rusf10 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are local news papers not usable? I thought there was something about how they were in some cases for local places. Id consider a winery as much a geographical thing as a corporation depending. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No local newspapers aren't good enough, WP:AUD applies. If allowed them to establish notability, every mom and pop business would have a wikipedia article.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a blanket ban on local newspapers like your making it sound. WP:AUD says there needs to be at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source to back them up, but they are still acceptable when their is at least one of those. In this case, the article has at least three regional and statewide sources to put the local sources over the threshold of being acceptable. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:15, 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 06:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some routine local coverage of winery events (tastings, dinners, etc.); listings in guidebooks but every winery gets a listing. Other articles just mention winery in passing and some of the cited articles don't mention the winery at all. Glendoremus (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

~~Toms, Charlie (2013-09-07). "Hawk Haven Vineyards Review". American Winery Guide. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.~~
Jackson, Bart (2011). Garden State Wineries Guide: The Tasteful Traveler's Handbook to the Wineries and Vineyards of New Jersey. San Francisco: Wine Appreciation Guild. pp. 60–61. ISBN 978-1-934259-57-3. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
Howard-Fusco, John (2017). Culinary History of Cape May, A: Salt Oysters, Beach Plums & Cabernet Franc. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-62619-589-9. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
D'Addono, Beth (2015-07-09). "Red, White & Jersey: Sure, it's the Garden State. But who harbored such grape expectations?". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22 – via Newspapers.com.

Sources with quotes

~~Toms, Charlie (2013-09-07). "Hawk Haven Vineyards Review". American Winery Guide. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.~~
The article notes:
The Wuerker family has farmed in Rio Grande, New Jersey since 1940. Originally they were lima bean and dairy farmers, but in 1997 they planted Cabernet Sauvignon grapes. Twelve years later Todd and Kenna Wuerker opened Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery. The name refers to the large number of hawks that migrate to the farm every year, and many of their wines have hawk-related names. The winery is located near the shore resort communities of Wildwood and Cape May, and is in the Outer Coastal Plain Viticultural Area, which consists of more than 25 Southern New Jersey wineries. Hawk Haven has 120 acres of land, 9 acres of which is cultivated with grapes grown by the Wuerkers and their viticulturalist Lalo Serra. The vineyard is a member of the Garden State Wine Growers Association, and produces around 4,200 cases of wine per year.
The winery is easy to find – just look for grape vines, an American flag, and a sign with two hawks on it. Across the street from the entrance are more of Hawk Haven’s grapevines, and a railroad track which is part of the Cape May Seashore Lines. A tourist train occasionally runs on the track, and the train will stop upon request at the vineyard. Hawk Haven has a patio with chairs, tables, and umbrellas, and customers are invited to have picnics and bring pets. The winery is in a large concrete and stone building with an arched entrance. The tasting room consists of a pine-clad counter with wooden stools, behind which is a wine rack. To the side of the tasting room is a room filled with oak barrels and awards that Hawk Haven has won.
Hawk Haven produces wine from 17 different grapes – Albarino, Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Chambourcin, Chardonnay, Gewurztraminer, Merlot, Petit Verdot, Pinot Gris, Riesling, Sangiovese, Sauvignon Blanc, Syrah, Tempranillo, Vidal Blanc, Viognier, and Zinfandel. The winery was chosen to be a test site for a Rutgers University study, and in the spring of 2013, they planted Lagrein and Teroldego grapes, two very rare red grapes from Trentino-South Tyrol region of Italy. Researchers are studying whether grapes from this region of Italy can be successfully grown in New Jersey. If the project is successful, Hawk Haven plans to make blended wines from Lagrein and Teroldego.
Jackson, Bart (2011). Garden State Wineries Guide: The Tasteful Traveler's Handbook to the Wineries and Vineyards of New Jersey. San Francisco: Wine Appreciation Guild. pp. 60–61. ISBN 978-1-934259-57-3. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
The book notes:
The doors have just flung wide on Memorial Day 2011, and the obviously new, warmly paneled tasting room may set your palate to accept first-season efforts. Then comes the surprise. The wrist-thick vines out back have basked under the nearby ocean's breezes since their first planting in 1997. Back in the tasting room, the complexity of 2007 Merlot and the rich, full finish of the Cabernet Sauvignon bear testimony to this maturity.
Before coming into their own, Hawk Haven founders Todd Wuerker and wife Kenna produced the twelve varieties on their nine-acre vineyard for five other South Jersey wineries. Following in the tradition of his grandfather and father, who owned and tilled this land since 1940, Todd is a careful, precise farmer. When he set aside the vineyard from the 110 acres of pumpkins and lima beans, he designed a strategy for long term development. His restricted space planting brings less fruit on each vine, less fruit per acre—and more quality.
It is this blend of generational farm wisdom, and a refreshing, energetic approach that have developed their 2007 American Kestrel White. This lightly oaked Chardonnay subtly enhances rather than overwhelms seafood. Likewise, Hawk Haven's 2008 Riesling holds a surprisingly full body without being cloyingly sweet.
Here is your chance to walk, picnic, and explore. Like the hawks overhead, visitors may roam the vineyard's one-hundred acres, find one of the tree-hemmed lakes, and perhaps settle in with a 2008 Pinot Grigio for lunch. My personal favorite: a sip on the old-fashioned rope swing out front.
The book further notes:
Vineyard production: Nine-plus acres containing twelve varieties, such as Syrah, Cabernet Franc, Malbec, Merlot, Riesling and the black Spanish Tempranillo. These plus twenty percent of grapes bought locally produce two-thousand cases annually.
Facility: The ample Wine Room with long tasting bar hold fifty joyful oenophiles easily. The barrel room offers intimate parties the right atmosphere for dinner and elegant evenings. Outside, Hawk Haven invites guests to wander the over ten-acres with lakes and natural picnic areas, and also offers a twenty-five-person tent to serve as party central.
Howard-Fusco, John (2017). Culinary History of Cape May, A: Salt Oysters, Beach Plums & Cabernet Franc. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-62619-589-9. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
The book notes:
Once a dairy farm that eventually grew lima beans, Hawk Haven shifted course and became a winery in 1997. That was the year brothers Todd and Ken Wuerker planted their first Cabernet Sauvignon vines. The farm where Hawk Haven is located has been part of the Wuerker family since Felix Wuerker came to Cape May from Germany in 1940. The brothers are the third generation to be in charge of the farm, and they have quickly made their winery a destination for wine lovers touring the Cape.
The tasting room opened in 2009, and ever since, Todd and his wife, Kenna, have created a fun and relaxed environment throughout their one-hundred-acre farm. Hawk Haven currently grows as many as sixteen different varieties of grapes over fourteen acres, many of which have become typical to the Outer Coastal Plain: Cabernet Franc, Chardonnay, Viognier and Chambourcin. But Todd Wuerker has also grown some interesting choices as well, such as Gewurztraminer and Albariño. They even produced a port with Moscato grapes.
D'Addono, Beth (2015-07-09). "Red, White & Jersey: Sure, it's the Garden State. But who harbored such grape expectations?". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22 – via Newspapers.com.
The above link is the third page of the article. This^{Internet Archive} is the first page and this^{Internet Archive} is the second page. The article notes:
Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery

This farm-turned-winery is a labor of love in the hands of Todd Wuerker, the third generation in his family to work this soil, and his wife and partner, Kenna Sitarski. Opened for tastings since 2009, the winery produces award-winning vintages, including a cellared 2008 Quill — a classic Bordeaux with plenty of cranberry herbal notes that earned a gold medal in the World Wine Championship.
Stop by for a sampling or reserve a more in-depth tour through every step of the winemaking process, from the vineyard to the vast steel tanks and French oak barrels. This $25 experience includes a selection of cheese and a glass to take home.
There's live music from 2 to 5 p.m. every Saturday through October, with local singer-songwriters and wine sipping, if you need a break from the beach.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery, a winery based in Cape May County, New Jersey, received significant coverage in:
1. ~~a 2013 review from American Winery Guide~~
2. a 2011 book titled Garden State Wineries Guide published by the San Francisco-based Wine Appreciation Guild
3. a 2017 book titled Culinary History of Cape May published by Arcadia Publishing
4. a 2015 article from the Philadelphia Daily News, a newspaper that serves Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The winery has received sustained significant coverage from geographically diverse sources.
Cunard (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these sources pass test to qualify as significant coverage--

1) American Winery Guide is a blog sourced by volunteer correspondents. There is no editorial control that I can see.

2) Garden State Wineries Guide is essentially a directory listing of all wineries in New Jersey. Reviews are clearly promotional.

3) Culinary History of Cape May covers the winery in passing, two short paragraphs among 7 pages on wineries in the region

4) Red, White & Jersey mentions Hawk Haven in passing; again one of several wineries mentioned in passing, not in depth, promotional.

Based on these sources, winery is clearly not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have stricken the American Winery Guide source as its reliability is dubious. The 2011 book titled Garden State Wineries Guide provides a substantial review of the winery. It is not merely a directory listing. That the reviewer gave a positive review of the winery does not make the review unusable for establishing notability.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery is not the "main topic of the source material" for some of these sources, but that is not required by the guideline. All of these sources "addres[s] the topic [of Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery] directly and in detail" so provide "significant coverage" of the subject.

Here are some more sources about the subject:

Vigna, Paul (2017-05-25). "Wine tour 2017: Four wineries in one Cape May, N.J., day trip". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
Vigna, Paul (2019-06-30). "Winery tour 2019: Visit these six in one Cape May weekend trip". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
Davies, Danielle (2018-08-22). "Five Things to Do at Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery This Weekend". The Press of Atlantic City. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.

Sources with quotes

Vigna, Paul (2017-05-25). "Wine tour 2017: Four wineries in one Cape May, N.J., day trip". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
The article notes:
You'll drive around 10 minutes to the final stop at Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery, 600 South Railroad Avenue, in Rio Grande.
Hawk Haven is open seven days a week. It switches to its summer hours this weekend, which is 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays and 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mondays through Fridays.
Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery is located in the Outer Coastal Plain AVA and uses the biggest variety of grapes of the four wineries, all growing on 14 acres. It produces wine from (in alphabetical order): Albarino, Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Chambourcin, Chardonnay, Gewurztraminer, Merlot, Petit Verdot, Pinot Gris, Riesling, Sangiovese, Sauvignon Blanc, Syrah, Tempranillo, Vidal Blanc, Viognier and Zinfandel grapes.
Co-owner and winemaker Todd Wuerker pours wines for a tasting in Hawk Haven's barrel room, which the winery offers daily, year-round. Hawk Haven wines have won numerous awards for many of its different varieties. The most notable awarded to the Cabernet Franc was the Governor's Cup as well as a gold medal at the 2016 N.J. Wine Competition. Todd and his wife, Kenna, began their work to open the winery in August of 2006 and established Hawk Haven Vineyard LLC by May 2008, opening the tasting room just one year later. Their first vintage was in 2007 and consisted of the American Kestrel White (an unoaked Chardonnay), red table wine, Merlot, and Cabernet Sauvignon.
Vigna, Paul (2019-06-30). "Winery tour 2019: Visit these six in one Cape May weekend trip". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
The article notes:
Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery

Hawk Haven’s story is like many others up and down the East Coast, a farm that’s been rooted into a family for decades and eventually turned into a winery. Located in the Rio Grande section of Cape May, it was purchased by Johan Felix Wuerker after he traveled from Germany to Cape May in 1940. Fast-forward to 1997 when Todd Wuerker and older brother Ken planted the first grapevines, Cabernet Sauvignon.
Todd and his wife, Kenna, got their plan under way to open a winery in August 2006. Hawk Haven Vineyard LLC was established in May 2008, and the tasting room opened a year later. Their first vintage was in 2007 and consisted of the American Kestrel White (an unoaked Chardonnay), Red Table Wine, Merlot, and Cabernet Sauvignon. Today they have 14 acres of vines and growing 16 varieties of grapes. All of the grapes are harvested, pressed, fermented, aged, blended, and bottled on site. Here’s a link to more on the Hawk Haven story.
[quotes from the co-owner]
...
Its wines quickly are maturing into some of New Jersey’s best, as mentioned above with the references to the high numbers its Syrah and Albarino scored in several multi-state tastings. You can find the usual array of dry and sweet wines, highlighted by its Signature Series. Bottles range from the upper teens into the 20s, with a few of its top-level wines hitting price points near $40.
The winery enhanced its profile in 2018 by joining the The Winemakers Co-Op, which features several of the state’s elite producers.
Davies, Danielle (2018-08-22). "Five Things to Do at Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery This Weekend". The Press of Atlantic City. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-03-22.
The article notes:
... there are a bevy of things to do at Hawk Haven Vineyard & Winery in Rio Grande this weekend, in addition to simply sipping.
1 Head there for the wine, obvs. Get to Hawk Haven any weekday at 1 p.m. for a vineyard and winery tour complete with a selection of gourmet cheeses, wine tastings, and a souvenir glass for just $25 per person. Sample some wines, get a tour of the beautiful grounds of Hawk Haven and get a first-hand wine education.
...
4 A.J. Meerwald. It turns out that vineyards aren’t just for landlubbers. Head out to sea on the A.J. Meerwald on Saturday for a 2.5-hour cruise with winemaker Todd Wuerker — as well as limited-edition Signature Series and cellared Hawk Haven wines — and passed hors d’oeuvres from Chef Lucas Manteca. Seating is limited and tickets are $109 per person.

That The Patriot-News, a newspaper that serves Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, covered a Cape May County, New Jersey, winery strongly establishes notability.

Cunard (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is quite WP:PROMO, but the topic has enough coverage to establish notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are more than enough sources to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources demonstrate notability. Djflem (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic passes GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 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) 19:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voicians[edit]

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

No significant reliable coverage. Sources found via Google Search turn up only news sources related to their work with other artists. A majority of sources used on the current version are unreliable. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are 0 sources and no credible claims. Praxidicae (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NMUSICBIO controls and is not satisfied. Could still survive if WP:BASIC were met, but it is not, coverage is trivial or from unreliable sources, indeed the altwire interview seems to be about as good as it gets for english-language sources. Machine translated searching is always tricky so it's easy to miss things, but nothing indicating reliable SIGCOV immediately came up. Would be willing to strike and reconsider if someone who's better at that sort of thing finds the guideline's criteria are in fact met. No good redirect target, nor does any content seem to be appropriate for merging so deletion it is. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:15, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Russia[edit]

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

Unsourced, small community, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 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. (non-admin closure) DTM (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020 Kabul attack[edit]

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

Not news, no sustained coverage. On the same day there was another bomb attack. Too many incidents like this in Afghanistan. Should remain in the Lists articles and not as a standalone. DTM (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems noteworthy, while there are a lot of terror attacks in Kabul there aren’t a ton which have targeted the Sikh minority. A quick google also suggests that there is more coverage of the event than is currently included in the sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am usually for deleting these Kabul attacks. But this one is definitely notable and is worth keeping. 11S117 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's true that a lot of attacks happen in Afghanistan. But most attacks are carried out by Taliban against defense forces, not attacks against Sikh. The attack also got a lot of news coverage in the world, so in my opinion it's definitely notable.Lukasvdb99 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sikhs are a religious minority in Afghanistan who were forced to wear armbands denoting their minority status during Taliban rule. The attack targeted their place of worship. This is not a run-of-the-mill incident in a conflict-ridden nation and has received a lot of coverage in India. This group is a potential beneficiary of the Indian Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 due to their persecuted minority status. — Last Contrarian (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notabel for now per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID passes WP:GNG now the question whether it is lasting cannot be decided at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - there is no chance that this article will be deleted. This mass shooting is highly notable for several reasons. It's ridiculously early to claim that there hasn't been sustained coverage. The fact that many attacks have occurred in Afghanistan does not mean that individual attacks aren't notable. If it did, we'd have to delete most of our articles about mass shootings in the US & Mexico as well as most of those about bombings in the UK & Spain. Prior to this article being created, the nominator wrote an article about the same attack - Kabul Sikh temple attack - then redirected it. Jim Michael (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as an example of discrimination against Sikhs.--Catlemur (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sikhs are a minority in Afghanistan, also, as said above, if a shooting in a remote town in i.e. Alabama leaves 1 dead, there's an article and no discussion. We should be deleting most U.S. shooting articles if we delete this one. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, clearly a notable event, article needs expansion, not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article moved to Kabul gurdwara attack.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 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. As WP:TNT; consensus is that this is a valid topic but the article as written cannot stand. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Personality cult of the N. Nazarbayev[edit]

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

This looks like original research, personal view and not supported by independent sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep I believe this is a valid topic but the article needs quite a bit of work. If kept, the title should be Nursultan Nazarbayev's cult of personality to match similar articles in Category:Cults of personality. Pichpich (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:NOR and WP:TNT. Article has no sources and seems to be OR. If someone rescues it, then I'll re-evaluate, but this is unacceptable. And yes, the title is bad. The article's creator seems to be creating numerous articles, so someone should take a look at those too. [44] Crossroads ^-talk- 04:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs TNT, -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:45, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NFL season ticket waiting lists[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly encyclopaedically valuable about this subject. Many top-level sports teams have waiting lists for their season tickets, and the NFL is no different. Furthermore, the technicalities of how the teams get through their waiting lists isn't very useful. The whole thing seems pretty crufty. – Pee Jay 14:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be a good entry for a sports almanac or another website. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 13:47, 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) 19:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Gray (racing driver)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. Sources 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 were all published by Gray's PR team, and source 6 is essentially a reprint of one with a couple sentences added in. That leaves only sources 4 and 8, which were written by the same person on the same site. I wouldn't be opposed to draftifying if other editors want to try and take a second effort at building the page, but it's not ready for mainspace as is. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nine sources is enough for a published article. I hope Taylor Gray moves up the NASCAR ranks and become a young superstar. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC) On second thought, delete because he doesn't meet WP:GNG. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Literally the entire AfD rationale is explaining how those sources do not count towards notability. I hope you reconsider your decision. I have nothing against him personally but the article is not in a sufficent state for mainspace yet. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. He fails WP:NMOTORSPORT as a non-professional driver. That distinction has been drawn (in the American stock car world) as racing in one of the top 3 NASCAR series. He is two rungs below that level when he races in the ARCA East tour. Royal broil 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change to a Draft: Thanks for the comments guys. I do understand why it was nominated for deletion and I can accept that. What I won't accept/hope doesn't happen is a complete deletion. I found all that info and I don't want it to be lost. Thank you Willsome for saying that most of the sources I put in were basically copied and pasted press releases. (Which BTW, are not inaccurate, so another reason to just draft the article and not delete it.) I didn't even notice or think that's what they were since they came from many different sites. Even though it seems like now is not the time to create his article yet (what Royalbroil mentioned), I'm thinking Taylor Gray will get/need an article eventually. Possibly it can be added back when he starts to find success in ARCA like how the Derek Griffith article was created after his performance in his East Series debut. It's a bummer that this has to happen because I put in a lot of effort/research into this article, but I'm OK with it and understand it's because of the reasons and rules you all described. Cavanaughs (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Cavanaughs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Please take a look at WP:EFFORT.
SSSB (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the possibility of WP:REFUND in several years if and when he does become notable. However given that he probably won't be notable for several years I see little point in draftifing. Also we don't draftify articles on the hope that they may one day become notable. If he becomes notable go through WP:REFUND.
SSSB (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it does not follow any guidelines in WP:NMOTORSPORT with the possibility of REFUND later. This person is definitely not notable right now and the sources are unreliable.--Globg (talk) 16:22, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League attendance figures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The figures in this article are presented with very little context, and a year-by-year record of NFL attendances isn't particularly encyclopaedic. – Pee Jay 13:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it was a clear case of WP:NOTSTATS when I nominated it before and nothing has changed. no context, not prose, just numbers. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overall attendance records could be notable, but annual attendance figures makes this article nothing more than a data table. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 06:57, 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) 19:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jazla Madasseri[edit]

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

Completing AfD on behalf of User:137.97.113.23, per their request. Statement from requester follows. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER, a non-notable social activist and TV personality. Her only coverage is as a contestant in the reality TV show Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 2) (WP:1E), no achievements as a social worker, and the flashmob thing was a run-of-the-mill news. There's nothing notable to write about her.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Big Brother-like content participant that got a WP:INTERVIEW or two and few mentions in passing. WP:ONEEVENT (can be mentioned in the show's page), fails NBIO/GNG otherwise. Ping me if better sources are found and analyzed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and above. Non-notable activist does not meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added 6 references it is not WP:ONEEVENT , she was the District Vice President of the Kerala Students Union got suspended and later got coverage after she received death threats in 2017 for taking part in a flash mob. She wears different hats as a social activist and actress and the coverage is from 2017 and continuing much before she joined Big Boss in 2020. Further, there is coverage of her in the Malayalam Language media. Pinging Piotrus Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being a District Vice President of the KSU does not give her automatic notability (WP:INHERITED). News about death threat after a flashmob is a run-of-the-mill coverage, it is a punishable offense, anyone would in the news if they went through that. That's not the kind of coverage needed for notability; and no notable work as actress and social activist or whatsoever. 2409:4073:19F:D95E:D1F3:B7DA:C2CA:1F55 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NewsMinute Kerala flash mob: Muslim woman gets death threats, women’s panel awaits police report
Deccan Herald Kerala: Bullies continue abuse as panel awaits police report
Quint Kerala Woman Gets Death Threats For... Being Part of a Flash Mob?
Asianet News 'നരകത്തില്‍ നിന്നാണ് സംസാരിക്കുന്നത്'; തന്റെ 'മരണവാര്‍ത്തയോട്' പ്രതികരിച്ച് ജസ്ല...
The Times of India Activist to the queen of controversies: Here's all you should know about Bigg Boss Malayalam 2 wildcard entrant Jazla Madasseri
Manorama News ജസ്‌ലയ്ക്കു സസ്പെൻഷൻ, നന്ദി, ഇപ്പോള്‍ റിലാക്സേഷനുണ്ടെന്നു ജസ്‌ല...
News Track Bigg Boss Malayalam: Jazla Madasseri says this thing about Rajith Kumar after getting evicted
Mathrubuami Offensive remarks: Jazla Madassery to move legally against Firoz Kunnamparambil......
The Times of India The strategy of applying medicine after hurting someone doesn't excite me, says BB Malayalam fame Jazla Madasseri
Mathrubuami വേശ്യാ പരാമര്‍ശത്തില്‍ മാപ്പ് പറഞ്ഞ് ഫിറോസ് കുന്നംപറമ്പില്‍......
There has been continous coverage of her right from 2017 to date feel she will scrape through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable activist, doesn't meet WP:GNG--Irshadpp (talk) 09:48, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT Index[edit]

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

There is no indication of the encyclopaedic relevance of this arcane formula or that it has gained any traction outside of a one-time usage by ESPN in 2017. The article details the purpose of this "index" and how it is calculated but there is nothing about its impact on the world. In fact, it doesn't even seem like ESPN used the same formula as detailed in the article and theirs was a mere opinion poll. – Pee Jay 13:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be somewhat unencyclopedic. If this was a more widely used measure I could be persuaded to keep, but seems like a formula someone made up one day. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure. The mathematics behind it may be of note, but I'd like a math guru to weigh in.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: Not sure if I count as a math guru (I'm a PhD student in statistics), but the second formula essentially does the following:

Calculate, for different metrics, each player's value on that metric as a percentage of the average value across all players;
Take an average of those percentages.

The first formula is very similar, but it's more like a weighted average of percentages (it's not quite that, but it's the same as that up to multiplying by a constant). In other words, I can't see anything particularly notable about the maths behind the formulae. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my concerns are addressed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two of the independent references are about this particular index (rather than just regular GOAT articles); one of those is a blog and the other is a local radio station piece. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GOAT Index seems like a play on ESPN statistics (NBA and NFL) and put into a formula by a fan who loves numbers. Though sportcasters credit this person and use the term, it is like quoting an opinion rather than a solid mathematical evidence of a player's overall career performance. Though seems fancy with a quantitative data, it is not peer reviewed by statisticians. GOAT Index as a metric is questionable.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 04:10, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Rose[edit]

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

non-notable actress, no coverage and only had minor roles. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I think the subject falls a little bit shy of WP:NACTOR, and I am really struggling to find sources (there are quite a few sources about a model named Julia Rose, but I presume that she is a different person). I would have no objection to the article being recreated in the future, but, at the moment, the lack of sources is too great an issue to ignore. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up any primary or secondary coverage. None of the claims made in the article can be verified since the article doesn't cite any sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:19, 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 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Ansari[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Net Element[edit]

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

highly promotional article, dealing in detail with non-encyclopedic business details of a barely notable company. Please consider also the adjacent AfDs on its CEO. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. I've worked in school buildings with more employees - in fact, I was a group leader at a bank and we worked in a room with more employees than this company. Most years I have taught (whether college or secondary schools) I had more than twice as many students as this company has employees. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a company and its products in often promotional terms ("next generation cloud-based point of sale payments platform", "a leading provider", "comprehensive turnkey, payment-processing solutions", "value-added transaction services", etc.) - overall a text suitable for a corporate website. Such issues might be resolved by a substantial rewrite, but while I can see sporadic discussion of the company's share price, I don't see evidence that the company is notable. AllyD (talk) 15:24, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Firer[edit]

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

non-notable promotional bio of

Though ambassadors are often notable, precedent is that they are not automatically notable , and for the case of an ambassador of a small state like Grenada, I don't think it can be assumed. See in this connection the username of the contributor of this article, and their User talk:Paymentguru talk page.

None of the awards are substantial; 40 under 40 and similar are mere vehicles for promotion, and articles relying on them need to be look at with skepticism. Examining the article on Inc, which is the past has sometimes been reliable, I notice it contains the advertisement:"Give your company a profile on Inc: find out how. " which links to [45] -- it costs only $50 a year The profile there is a typical promotional interview where the subject says whatever they please about themselves and their activities. Please see also the adjacent AfD on his company. DGG ( talk ) 09:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional. References are puff pieces. No indications of notability, run-of-the-mill businessman trying to promote their profile. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NOTRESUME. Let's be blunt, okay? This guy is a middle-level manager and sometime shop-keeper. I have taught, supervised, or worked in a bank room with more people than this business person has allegedly supervised. It's 2020, and we can't assume good faith any more; everyone knows Wikipedia is a charity and an encyclopedia, not your resume web-host for you to make a profit off of volunteers. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 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 delete. I think general consensus is to delete rather than draftify, but I don't mind undeleting and moving to draft if anyone wants to work on it there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord[edit]

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

Actress who fails WP:GNG according to sourcing on page and to my Google search for articles from reliable sources with significant coverage. She also fails WP:NACTOR due to a single lead role. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Citrivescence (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The role she has is in a good spot, a successful and respectable show... but it's still a single role, the fifth or sixth most important character in the piece. Argument on the article's talk page that she would be the only red-linked cast member is a form of WP:INHERITED; that she acts with notable people does not inherently make her notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the nominator clearly has a beef, starting an AfD so soon after being forced to admit Draftifying was a mistake. There's hardly been any time to improve the refs. The nom slapped the notability template on the page exactly one minute before taking it to AfD. The nom claims "fails GNG" without any elaboration, despite being asked to do so on numerous occasions. This reeks of a case of following the rules to the letter, not the spirit. In light of this I ask that this AfD is, at the very least, put on hold for at least a week, to show minimal courtesy and allow a regular (non-infected, non-hysterical) "improve refs" discussion on the talk page. CapnZapp (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. There's a lack of biographical independent sources, which is reasonable given her age: an understandable reluctance to start writing about children in a way that can stoke obsessive fan interest. This can wait I think. The redlink issue is easily resolved: don't link the name. Guy (help!) 11:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This is a borderline article, in my opinion. The subject is mentioned in a lot of sources, but there's little significant, in-depth coverage. Aside from her role in Young Sheldon, she also played the main character's younger self in the film, Wish Upon, which could go towards WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I will note that the page is popular, getting about 20,000 views per month (and that was true even at the end of 2017 when she briefly had a page, which I think I may have prodded for WP:NACTOR - a status that I'm not convinced Wish Upon helps at all, unless we see some real coverage of that performance). Of course, popularity is not in itself a sufficient reason for keeping a page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a little bit on the WP:TOOSOON side, Nat Gertler, but close enough that I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Draftifying or Redirecting to Young Sheldon might be an idea if the consensus is to "Delete". Dflaw4 (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. She has been a regular for three seasons and this is not her first role. Her popularity, performances and her other work are well documented. Calling her not notable is an extraordinary claim. Bijdenhandje (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I want to note how wrong it feels to have a GNG discussion this way. I refuse to work with a sword hanging above my head. Yes, I could point out that no policy requires "biographical independent sources" or that "little significant, in-depth coverage" doesn't mean no such coverage. Or I could again ask the nom to expound on his assertion "fails GNG". Or I could ask you how bad it looks for every member of the main YS cast except a female having their own page. But I won't since red-tape formalists will still delete the article.

Contrast with a much more friendly good-faith-assuming way to approach the exact same steps:

) first stating on talk "I consider moving this discussion to DRAFT. What do y'all say" instead of just assuming the article is a newb mistake, belittling everybody contributing to the article.
) if that fails to achieve consensus, start a notability discussion (possibly involving the notability template) on the page, giving ample time for discussion, including specific advice on how to improve the article
and only if that fails to satisfy the nom
) list the article here at AfD

So again, don't be surprised of a lack of constructive input given the circumstances. Nobody wants to work this way. CapnZapp (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CapnZapp, I don't think this has anything to do with the sex of the subject. Quite simply, the actress is very young and hasn't yet attained a whole lot of coverage for the purposes of the notability guidelines. Personally, I'm okay with letting the article stand, because I'm confident that she will end up meeting the those guidelines without any problems. I'd also have no problem with the article being moved to "Draftspace", as you point out. But I don't see any bad faith here on the part of the nominator or other editors—just a concern, especially given her young age, that the subject is not yet ready to have a page. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I am sick and tired of special pleading, and I am sick and tired of people creating articles on individuals before they are notable. We do not keep articles because we think the subject will become notable, we only keep articles on people who are notable now. The person here is not presently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is already notable, please read the guidelines. Why should there be a special guideline for this person? Bijdenhandje (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bijdenhandje: Can you tell us in what way she meets the guideline, with sources? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sources for her multiple roles are on her page and here. Her voiceacting and bookclub have not been added yet. She has a significant fanbase (see her Instagram amoung others). She does paid modelling work, gets stalked by paparazzi and is also in a recent COVID-19 campaign. I am not aware of any guideline that would make her not 'presently notable'. Bijdenhandje (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the multiple-roles thing, what people are tripping on here is the requirement that they be "significant" roles. I don't think anyone's denying that the Young Sheldon role qualifies as significant, but there is less certainty about others. Reviews in vital outlets that specifically called out her performance would help. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now the discussion is about TOOSOON or not. Let's have some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 08:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or merge to Young Sheldon due to being to soon. Draftying has the advantage of allowing the original creator time to find sources and improve the article with them at least if some exist. Merging has its benefits also though. So I'm good with either. Adamant1 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No new sources added after a week, and none of the current ones helps with WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 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 09:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Newland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A run-of-the-mill painter. There is a tiny amount of coverage. This is a case where I think we should apply the more stringent WP:ARTIST criteria, as there is little that is really notable here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is actually not that bad after all the trimming. However, I think it's unlikely that it passes WP:GNG even if the two inaccessible sources could be read. Curiocurio (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is not that bad but still marginal.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately, it does strike me as having been written by a friend or relative. Though there is some evidence she has a work owned by Edith Cowan University, I can't even find any proof that the Rotary Club of Pinjarra Art Award even exists. Evidently a successful artist, but not a notable one in the Wikipedia definition of the word. Sionk (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST ie. no wikisignificant exhibitions/critical attention, nor representation in wikinotable galleries or museums collections. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ken J. Nolan[edit]

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

This article is positively refbombed, and yet the only source that comes even close to significant coverage has no byline and looks like a press releases [46]. Does not meet WP:GNG _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Talk about WP:REFBOMBing; more like carpet bombing. None of the sources - including the one singled out by nom - contains more than a passing mention, and many no more than a namecheck. I searched for his lawfirm, Nolan Auerbach & White, and I can't see how even that would pass WP:GNG. Zero WP:RS coverage, fails GNG and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely WP:REFBOMBed but a quick evaluation of sources makes it very apparent that Nolan does not pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:31, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Hart[edit]

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

I don't think that the subject meets WP:GNG. Of the provided sources, the only ones with any depth are not independent of the subject. One of the citations is very literally an ad. The subject has played in some well-known bands, but I can't find anything online, on Google Scholar, or on Rock's Backpages. A significant amount of the biographical content has no sources whatsoever but is written with a level of detail that has me suspect a COI. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz-Carlton Langkawi[edit]

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

Since no other admin was willing to confirm my speedy delete tag on this blatant advertisement, I bring it here. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely promotional. Mccapra (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been speedied. It's a blatant ad. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 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 redirect to Joris Ivens#Filmography. MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Kind[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search turned up a listing site additional to WP:IMDb, previously the sole citation. It provided a summary and running time, which I added to the article. The film seems to have been a propaganda short. Such films can be notable; there are some in List of Allied propaganda films of World War II, for example. I can find no WP:RS evidence that Mein Kind is. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is a film by Joris Ivens, one of the most influencial documentary filmmakers in film history. It is listed in Joris Ivens' filmography unter the title My Child (1956). So just rename it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:C71C:3B07:A81D:96D4:68F:A206 (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I've no objection to retargetting to Joris Ivens#Filmography. Narky Blert (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage, awards, criticism, or anything notable about the film. Just because it was directed by Joris Ivens doesn't mean it's actually notable. Koridas (Speak?) 16:09, 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. It seems like the delete camp has both the better arguments and better numbers, their key point being that the coverage of the subject by others is apparently inadequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Buckingham (polemicist)[edit]

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

no evidence of notability for this PR spokesman DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. The evidence of notability is

his repeated appearance in the UK press at an international level
his repeated appearance in the UK media at an international level
attention paid to him by other NGOs
the length of his service (20 years) at the same employer
the breadth of his service at the same employer (he must be doing something right)
the attention paid to him by the American media (he is an international polemicist)
his chairmanship of a significant UK lobby group

All these points have been addressed in the footnotes to the article, which presently are eight in number.

Magnovvig (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lol, having a career one employer is not a signifier of notability. Please learn that "appearances" do not contribute to WP:Notability, but coverage about him does. Every company hires a spokesperson to issue statements to the media, but their being quoted does not warrant an article about them. Reywas92^Talk 17:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebut: It is not that he has been quoted that warrants an article about him. The individual has been published as an authority under his own byline; he thus qualifies as a polemical writer. This fact alone warrants an article about him. Please see WP:AUTHOR points 3 and 4(a) in addition to WP:BASIC. Magnovvig (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnovvig: WP:AUTHOR point 3 says:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

and 4(a) says:

The person's work (or works) has ... become a significant monument

Neither of those seems to apply here: there's no evidence that his collective body of work is well-known or has been the subject of other people's work (both of which have to hold for 3 to apply), and his work definitely hasn't become a significant monument. I'm a bit confused, therefore, as to how these apply... YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 08:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you mention this difficulty, @YorkshireLad:. Let me explain. The polemicist in question works for a firm that has single-handedly redefined how agriculture works, and has changed our ideas about what we consume in a foxy way. The firm has been at the bleeding edge of agricultural technology and has needed to convince the western world of the value of its technology. The firm has employed Mark Armstrong to redefine our relationship to nature. Armstrong needs to be recognized and valued for his Herculean career and contribution. Armstrong is the Chairman (read: leader) of the polemical association that has maintained its iron fist on the tables of the nation for over 20 years. (see ref 6 - About ABC)

Check this against WP:AUTHOR 3&4a.

Armstrong deserves recognition in the same way that Andrew Wells does.

Magnovvig (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig: Andrew Wells, the character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

But anyway, I'm a little confused, because you're now talking about someone called Mark Armstrong, not the Mark Buckingham (polemicist) who is the subject of the article. I'll assume that you mean Buckingham (but apologies if I'm wrong), and take your points in turn:

The polemicist in question works for a firm that has single-handedly redefined how agriculture works ... The firm has employed Mark Armstrong to redefine our relationship to nature. Assuming you're talking about Monsanto and its successors here. You're right, Monsanto is notable; however, notability is not inherited, so Buckingham isn't notable just because his company is notable.
Armstrong needs to be recognized and valued for his Herculean career and contribution. Notability is also not subjective, as far as possible; editors try to apply objective standards, because what one person thinks is important and deserves an article, others may not. Hence the requirement for coverage in reliable sources.
Armstrong is the Chairman (read: leader) of the polemical association that has maintained its iron fist on the tables of the nation for over 20 years. (see ref 6 - About ABC) Again, notability is not inherited, but in that case the organisation (the ABC) doesn't have an article of its own either.
Check this against WP:AUTHOR 3&4a. Sorry, but I still don't see it:
- Even if you argue that the collective body of work that Buckingham's work is significant, I don't see the coverage of that work in the independent and notable work or multiple independent periodical articles or reviews that WP:AUTHOR pt. 3 requires. Can you provide citations to such coverage?
- As far as I can tell, 4(a) refers to literal monuments, like The Cenotaph or Nelson's Column. Note that WP:AUTHOR is actually a set of guidelines for notability for all creative professionals. Thus, I don't think 4(a) really applies to authors at all, because it's hard to think how a written work could be a monument—I think it's more one to be used for artists or architects.

I hope that makes sense; in short, I think you'd need to provide evidence of coverage about Buckingham's work in someone else's notable work, or in multiple people's reviews, etc., to have a claim until WP:AUTHOR 3. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad Yes, I meant Buckingham not Armstrong. Thanks.

Yes, Buffy the vampire slayer.

I recognize that notability is not inherited but who do you think is responsible for the way the products were sold to the marketplace if not for the chief polemicist of the firm? Monsanto is a legal fiction for a group of people that changed the way the world eats. Buckingham is the brains behind the group. Eight references, amongst which three op-eds in a world-class newspaper warrant Buckingham's inclusion on wikipedia.

Magnovvig (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, I appreciate you feel he should have an article, but you really do need to provide sources specifically to back up his notability. Going through the eight references you mention (referring to the numbering on this version of the page, in case anyone changes the order or adds new ones: [47])

Piece by Buckingham, not about him.
Ditto
Ditto
Article about Monsanto,^[a] not about him, with just quotes from him as its representative.
Article with just a quote from him, not principally about Buckingham (or indeed his company)
Source establishing him as chair of an organisation, but not an evidently notable one; also not a source independent of the subject.
This one has significant coverage of him; it's a local newspaper, so perhaps not a major source, but a reliable one.
Not a reliable source, it's an interest group.

As User:Reywas92 noted, getting published in a national newspaper isn't an indicator of notability as a writer, but people writing about the writing does. I'm not seeing any evidence of that, which make a claim to WP:AUTHOR dubious.

As for WP:GNG, we'd want significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources independent of the subject. We have one here, which isn't enough. I couldn't find any others when I looked, but I'd happily change my mind if you could find more sources like the Eastern Daily Press article. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ All companies are, in a sense, legal fictions. Monsanto is a legal fiction for 25,500 people, though, and we can't have an article about all of them. I'm sure Buckingham is an intelligent man, but to claim him as the brains behind a company founded in 1901 feels a bit tenuous. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, YorkshireLad thanks for your detailed and reasonable argument. I'll try my best to get you onside as per your last point. Magnovvig (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above: doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireLad:: I have significantly amended this morning the article on Buckingham. Is the ref name emza "Emotioneel zaaddebat op Food Filmfestival" at Wageningen University akin to the Eastern Daily Press article? And if so, will you change your vote? Magnovvig (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, I'm not sure if it's equivalent, as it's not clear who's written the article, and what level of editorial oversight the publication has. I'd appreciate other editors' input on this—pinging Reywas92 and DGG, who've also commented on this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkshireLad (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnovvig, my apologies: as I forgot to sign my previous comment, the notification for you (and for Reywas92 and DGG) would not have worked. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain my vote, these sources mention Buckingham's statements in the course of his routine job to make corporate statements; none are coverage about him. Reywas92^Talk 17:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof from secondary sources that this person is notable at all by our standards. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined the revised article and its references. None of them give substantial coverage. They are either written by him, or a report of what he said at an event, or a mere notice. None of this shows notability. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOTWEBHOST. WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:SIGCOV. Short of someone like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, PR people and spokesmen are not notable, period. There's lots of statements by him, but essentially nothing about him. This is essentially spam for him. In 2008, we could have excused that, but it's 2020, and everybody knows we are a charity and an encyclopedia, not a free web host. The revised article is at least written in standard Queen's English, so WP:TNT no longer applies. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local Education Agency[edit]

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

This article is little more than a dictionary definition. jamacfarlane (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - honestly, this is likely a notable subject. But as the nom said, it is little more than a dictionary definition. That could be fixed, but as it exists, it is so shallow and incomplete as to be a disservice to our readers. WP:TNT does apply. John from Idegon (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to !vote "keep" as an obviously notable subject, until I realised that the notable subject I was thinking of was a local education authority. The Local Education Agency article's reference to the term's usage in the UK is [48]—that site seems to be down at the moment, but using the Wayback Machine to look at the site from the given access date, I can't see any use of "Local Education Agency" on the site. Moreover, I can't find any evidence that the initialism is used in the UK to mean an "agency" rather than an "authority", so I think the part about UK usage should be removed, and I'll go ahead and do that once I've published changes on this.

However, removing that text leaves the article as not just a dictionary definition but an unreferenced one. There are references online to reliable sources for the definition (e.g. [49]), but little else that I can find, leading me to suggest deleting per WP:NOT#DICDEF. If not deleted, the title should be changed to be decapitalised, per WP:NCCAPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YorkshireLad (talk • contribs) March 25, 2020 (UTC)

I live in the UK and have never heard of a local education agency (as opposed to authority). A Google search of "gov.uk" sites produces 83,900 results for authority and 4 for agency (not 4,000, just 4). jamacfarlane (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 18:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTDICT, we could possibly have a redirect to Local education authority if editors believe this could be an alternative WP reader lookup term? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd worry that redirect would be confusing: "local education agency" is a term that is apparently used in the US, whereas the article on local education authorities is from a solely England-and-Wales perspective (and the "agency" term, per User:Jamacfarlane, isn't really used in the UK). Redirect to School district, maybe? YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 08:48, 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 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Wan Chan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this biography is not notable. The one secondary source cited, a one-line mention in The Straits Times, is trivial coverage. A BEFORE search for the searches "Elaine Wan Chan", "Elaine Chan Singapore", and "Elaine Chan music" (the search term "Elaine Chan" had too much noise and didn't reveal anything) revealed only one additional source, which turns out to be a primary source interview [50] in Tatler Singapore. There is no other coverage. With no independent reliable secondary sources and no qualifying criteria under WP:NMUSIC, the subject is not notable. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that there was a previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Wan Chan in 2005 with no consensus. I think it's clear that discussion was completely unfounded in policy. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability standards. Not enough reliable 3rd party sourcing to show notability. For what it is worth it was not really until 2006 that Wikipedia created notability standards, in 2005 this was the wild west where people thought we could create articles on everyone who ever commercially made theatrical/musical productions. We have since realized this would make lots of hyper local directors and producers lacking any reliable sourced coverage notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:57, 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 redirect to List of Hulk supporting characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ogress (comics)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article still fails to establish notability 11 years after the last AfD resulted in redirect. TTN (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore merge to List of Hulk supporting characters. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Hulk supporting characters. — Hunter Kahn 04:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hulk supporting characters, this article is sourced entirely to primary sources and as such fails GNG. A basic character biography already exists at that page, and as such there is nothing to merge as this is all in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was a consensus to redirect this article back when it was nominated in 2008. Why on Earth does it still exist? Unless something has changed, I think this is an obvious Snowball redirect. Dark Knight 2149 10:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - The prior AFD was pretty clear, and though it was 12 years ago, the notability and reliable sourcing of the character has not really increased. As the merge was already performed in the past, and there is no additional sourced information that has been added since, an additional merge now is not needed. Rorshacma (talk) 14:54, 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 soft delete. It can be restored by request on my talk page or at WP:UNDELETE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Yeo[edit]

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

The subject of this biography is not notable. Yeo, a deputy music educator at a Singaporean secondary school, has no coverage in reliable secondary sources; the sources cited in the article are all primary, and a BEFORE search yielded nothing. Not to mention, the article is entirely puffery and most statements are uncited. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:38, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Signature[edit]

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

Consulting company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Tagged for notability since 2016. Status as a Microsoft partner is not independent coverage, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything about them aside form the Microsoft partner thing. Which is clearly trivial coverage. So they obviously fail WP:NCORP notability.
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 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 WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 21:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus pandemic in North Korea[edit]

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

There are no confirmed cases of Coronavirus in North Korea so it shouldn't have its own article. It's not notable and falsely claims that there is a pandemic in North Korea. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) — 28 sources, decent coverage in news media and an overall decent article. Is this AfD a joke? WP:POINTY is applicable with very little to indicate WP:Good Faith. Carl Fredrik^talk 01:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, no, it's not a joke. Second, the article title falsely claims that there is a pandemic. Third, the coverage of this "event" is not sustained.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pandemic by definition is not a national event, but a global one. There is a pandemic on Earth right now, and as far as I am aware North Korea is on this planet. Hence the name would be appropriate even if there were really no cases. (That's also just an argument for an RM, which even it is flawed.) Carl Fredrik^talk 01:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although North Korea has not officially announced any confirmed cases, based on the fact that the closed their borders to their biggest ally, China, speaks volumes. With the vast majority of countries around the globe having contracted the virus, especially the ones that border North Korea (Russia, China and South Korea), it is only time until there are confirmed cases. The amount of quality sourced material included in the article by major news agencys should also speak numbers regarding the authenticity of the content and it not being just hear say.— Mr Xaero ^☎️ 01:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have an article based on speculations see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Still the article title claims that there is a pandemic although there isn't any confirmed cases in there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even the lack of cases in a GLOBAL pandemic is notable. Unless NK has a giant glass dome the size of the country, they have the virus within their borders. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 01:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a lack of cases does not imply the article should be deleted. There are plenty of news articles covering this topic, and the article is quite well-developed. If at the end of this North Korea turns out to be the only country unaffected by the pandemic, that would clearly be notable, even more so than now. – bradv🍁 01:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that the nomination specifically refers to a lack of confirmed cases. The sources are full of suggestions that the disease is present in DPRK, even if Kim isn't ready to admit it. That alone is worthy of coverage. – bradv🍁 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although ordinary we don't create articles when we expect something to become notable, this is definitely going to be subject to ongoing coverage during the course of the pandemic, and the article is decent enough quality to be kept even if notability is debatable at the moment because of a lack of reliable, independent sources from the area. Natureium (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please read what WP:CRYSTALBALL says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."(emphasis is mine)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reliable sources discussing the outbreak in DPRK. Just because they say they have no cases, doesn't mean there's no notability. Coverage is what we're looking for. Even if coverage is saying "we don't know for sure yet". Natureium (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about an anticipated event - it's about what's happening now. Read the sources, such as this one. – bradv🍁 01:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a sustained coverage. Bring one highly reliable source that covered the pandemic (not pass mentions) in the last 24 hours in regard to North Korea. The only source I can find is this and it is not about north Korea. Also, the source you provided is attributing to the South Korean media the only reporter about this. This is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the last 24 hours? – bradv🍁 02:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is 31 hours okay? [51] – bradv🍁 02:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got hold of 4 hours ago [52]. First on my google search results... 11 hours ago [53] is second… Carl Fredrik^talk 02:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this article shouldn't exist since there are no cases. I have not seen any article about a country that has no confirmed cases except this article. The title is also misinformation. Most people read the title only because they see it in Google and the title implies that there are confirmed cases and not just media reports from South Korea and the US.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, SharabSalam — The title doesn't imply that. The title implies that North Korea existed and was affected by the global pandemic. That it had no cases, but shut its borders is enough to be noteworthy, even if it "reports" 0 cases.
And what is the nonsense about it having 0 cases? Since when does Wikipedia take that type of information at face value? It's not only naive, but seems intentionally disruptive to even imply taking such statistics at face value…, when articles on the outbreak in the US, Italy, Nordics don't take the numbers at face value. Carl Fredrik^talk 08:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article title may be currently unfortunate. But everyone here understands that it is shorthand for "response to the pandemic" and "effects of the pandemic" and NK is affected just like everyone else on Earth. If NK still hasn't confirmed any cases in 2 weeks, then I might support an RM to emphasize the (suspicious) lack of an outbreak. But this is a thing and it's a thing in NK and we need uniform coverage. They don't get a pass because they're a retrograde dictatorship with bizarre customs and no free press. Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do follow the logic above — a pandemic can never be a national event. Carl Fredrik^talk 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was there something I wrote to imply that I think it is? Elizium23 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That there was something wrong about the article name. Carl Fredrik^talk 02:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pandemic is not a national event, but a pandemic can have exclusion zones. NK being as insular and backward as they are, depending on how quickly they closed their borders, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the virus actually did not get in at all. Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean the pandemic isn't affecting North Korea. Carl Fredrik^talk 02:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem remarkably pedantic in this discussion. Have our roles been reversed somehow? Elizium23 (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable from the sources in the article. I think the title is fine, but if there is concern that it may be misleading, feel free to start a move request. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2: Consider that I've withdrawn my nomination if I there is no delete vote on this thread in the next 6 hours. I will probably start a move request.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a move request is doing to go very well. All the other articles on CoV in other countries cover the same topic and follow the same naming conventions. Natureium (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Plenty of sourcing and this has been being covered a lot. However, the title may be a little misleading. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's close this per WP:SNOW. Sdkb (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ISTHISAJOKE? Agathoclea (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is well notable enough per WP:GNG. As well as that, there are multiple unconfirmed reports showing high volumes of cases and Donald Trump has congratulated Kim Jon-Un on their managing of the Coronavirus pandemic, suggesting there are more cases than at first thought. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are no cases as yet, there is an impact across the country, as per everywhere else. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has the notablility and there is a lot smaller COVID-19 related articals. — RealFakeKim T 17:29, 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. Clear consensus to keep and “reframe”, i.e., do some major restructuring, possibly change the scope, and possibly rename. Those issues should be worked out at the talk page. If it turns out that agreement cannot be reached in a month or so, or that other articles are written which cover the subject better, no prejudice against renomination. MelanieN (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine public figures who underwent COVID-19 testing[edit]

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

It's inappropriate to have a listing of people who have taken a specific medical test, along with their test results. It violates BLP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The number of covid-19 tests conducted is likely to be extravagant and it is simply not encyclopedic to list every single one. Public officials who died, perhaps more fitting for Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That exists at List of deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the list is indiscriminate. The article does not aim to list everybody who had been tested but rather public people especially government officials. —seav (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There will be hundreds of thousands of people tested countrywide, many will not test positive for the virus. A high number of them will be notable BLP's. This is incredibly indiscriminate. Ajf773 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". We have already placed context (which may need to be reframed) with explanations that are referenced by independent sources in the lede. As such, I believe this list no longer falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also, you have the List of named minor planets (numerical). What makes this extravagant and not the list of named minor planets which keeps growing? Let us worry about maintaining this list. It serves as an important resource for fighting disinformation in the Philippines as per explanation below. -Object404 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am still trying to work out how being tested for a virus is encyclopedic (let alone even borderline interesting and useful) and how listening every single case using a news report is not indiscriminate. This article is just a collection of news reports, and could possibly fails WP:NOTNEWS as well. Some of the officials do not have articles either. Ajf773 (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated by the nominator. Mccapra (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize the controversy (VIP testing) into prose and merge back as subsection of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines § Disease testing --Bluemask (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The target article is getting long and the controversy is widely discussed within the Philippines. Changing vote to Rewrite to emphasize about controversy instead. --Bluemask (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) How does this violate BLP? These are public figures who have publicly disclosed that they took the test (or in the case of the deceased, their next of kin did). 2) It is not indiscriminate in that it is restricted to public figures. It is not going to grow to a ridiculous size. 3) Also, please understand the local context of the creation of the list. The list serves a very important resource right now for fighting disinformation in the Philippines. There is an ongoing massive controversy in the Philippines over public figures who skipped ahead in the lines for COVID testing because of their privilege, and there are many unverified lists of VIPs who undertook the COVID test going around social media and private messengers, spread by outraged Filipinos. These unverified lists going around are extremely unfair to the people in them if the entry listing is unverified. This Wikipedia list serves as a vetted, verified list so that Filipinos will know what's real and what's not, so they don't unfairly vent their ire on innocent people. I hope you all understand the importance of this list. Thank you. -Object404 (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strongly Concur~~Keep and Reframe (Vote statement has been refined but is essentially the same) Agree with the assertion that people identified are public officials, and that the controversy is notable as per media coverage and WP:PUBLICFIGURE (as stated by another user below). Not sure this is the right format for this article, but strongly vote keep, with the possibility of renaming to 2020 Philippine COVID-19 VIP testing controversy. - Alternativity (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge: As per @Liz:. Media coverage is not a rationale alone for maintaining this list, which is better left alone to the media agencies and social media sites. Better merge useful and meaningful contents back to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the Philippines as per @Bluemask:. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind: After finding out that this is the only "near-"comprehensive list of allegedly selected-group of people tested for determining whether he/she has COVID-19 or not, and given that I always find news sources (in which I can access through socmed pages of agencies like GMA News, ABS-CBN, etc, I change my vote to keep, but the article as I last visited is not well-organized (for my perspective) and needs fixing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree that the article needs fixing. Need help with that. It's a very young article, so other editors should help fix it over time. Meanwhile, you are correct, as far as I know, it is the ONLY centralized, updated, vetted and verified list of these certain class of people which can fight the current rumors and misinformation going around right now in the Philippines on the topic. Mainstream media will not be able to replace this article's function because A) They have space constraints B) They might not have the resources to dedicate people to this topic are not as agile as Wikipedia editors in keeping things updated. -Object404 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm at a loss as to how this article violates WP:BLP, given that all the people mentioned in the list can be traced back to reputable, reliable sources in Philippine media, and given that these are high-profile figured who, by dint of their status, are generally notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia anyway. I should stress, however, that there is an important public service function that deletion proponents don't seem to get nor understand: there is a lack of reliable information on the pandemic in the Philippines, and Wikipedia is one place where I think this information ought to be stored for people to rely on when the time comes. If need be, we can add on to the list and turn it into an article all its own, but deletion doesn't solve the intrinsic set of circumstances that went into the article's creation to begin with, and to which Wikipedia is arguably uniquely positioned to provide given its role as a fairly reliable source for readers in the Philippines. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another important thing to note is that the people on the list (or their next of kin) self-disclosed their testing status to media, so it is not a violation of their privacy either. -Object404 (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies. Though context needs to be provided to all entries to avoid unnecessary negative association to people on the list, especially those who legitimately meets the national testing criteria, given the ongoing controversy.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reframe. It might be better to reframe this article as a public governance controversy instead of just as a list of public officials tested. Numerous news articles are discussing the issue: [54][55][56][57] —seav (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has now been mentioned in a South China Morning Post news article: Coronavirus: in Philippines, leak shows politicians and relatives received ‘VIP’ testing ("The leak sparked a Twitter hashtag that trended over the weekend, #NoToVIPTesting, while a new Wikipedia entry has been made for Philippine public figures who revealed they had been tested.", emphasis mine). —seav (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me just list similar articles and category that involve the status of whether a person has or has not COVID-19 which have already been deleted:
- List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 - Deleted, now undergoing a contentious deletion review
- List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19
- Vietnamese heiresses with coronavirus
- Category:People with coronavirus disease 2019
- Category:People with COVID-19

It is because of these deletion discussions which have already occurred that I nominated this article for deletion. The consensus has been that it is inappropriate to document whether individuals test positive, much less negative, for a disease. We don't have similar articles for other diseases or medical conditions. It's not a matter of sourcing or whether this knowledge is interesting, the consensus has been that these articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a matter of whether or not the article is interesting, but rather this list serves as an important public resource/public service for fighting a current misinformation/disiformation problem in the Philippines. We're ground zero in the current era of internet disinformation in the world, as illustrated by the insane amount of fake news websites being generated in/for the Philippines. We're also the top social media and internet users in the world (most time spent online and on social media in the world), and the misinformation on the unvetted versions of this list has been spreading like wildfire in our social media and private messenger channels. This list needs to exist for us because it's fighting a real world problem that may not exist in your countries, but it does for ours. I'm sorry, but you guys are robbing our country of a much needed resource in this time of crisis and misinformation if you delete this list. It doesn't matter that those were the decisions made on those other articles, my country might have a unique problem that may require a unique solution, and Wikipedia is currently the best platform to address it. -Object404 (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Object404, just to confirm, the sources used in the list are trustworthy and reliable? Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 16:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are. News media/journalistic sources. -Object404 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Redirect As per @Seav: and @Hariboneagle927:. The lead must be rewritten too. As per @Liz:, This is not a WP:BLP violation and WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind: I'm slowly getting convinced that it is WP:indiscriminate and better to just Delete, WP:NUKEIT, and start again. I created a draft on the alleged VIP testing controversy topic sans the list.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unlike similar deleted lists, which are plain trivial and the "Vietnamese heiresses with coronavirus". Several mainstream sources are keeping such lists because of the public issue of politicians bypassing testing protocols. I suggest the following actions to this article:
- 1. Further limit the scope the article to politicians. Afaik public figures who aren't politicians or relatives of such people had no to little controversy. Except for a single actor which had alleged VIP treatment which I suspect came from listings like this.
- 2. As part of a possible reframing, rename the article to "COVID-19 testing of Filipino politicians"
- 3. Rename to "COVID-19 testing controversy in the Philippines" to include other testing controversies (e.g. mass testing debates, criticism of the testing criteria, etc.) and scrap all entries except those politicians who have contentious/controversial testing circumstances according to RS.
- 4. Summarize this article as mention in a dedicated subsection in the main article with mention on notable certain cases (such as certain politicians admitting to bypassing protocols, etc.)

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion to restrict the list to politicians (and their families) might pose some problems. How/where do we categorize Bongbong and Imelda Marcos who are no longer a public officials, but are still politicians? How about Ramon Tulfo, who AFAIK has never been a public official, but is heavily involved with politics? -Object404 (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, "COVID VIP testing controversy" may be another possible title? Since the local media tends to characterize tests allegedly bypassed protocols as done by "VIPs".Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue of the use of the term VIP for the title of the article, mainly because all of the people in the list will be branded as VIP's when not all of them acted like entitled VIPs and were legitimate test candidates. Also, just because one is a politician does not automatically make one a VIP, and not all politicians act like VIPs. Hence, I think the term "public figure" is more appropriate. -Object404 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 deletion review has now been upheld. It will remain deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Reframe: Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The lead should be renamed, though. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a BLP Issue, since we have public figures disclosing information about themselves. The article has reliable sources. It is not a model list, but need for improvements is not a reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scope is narrow enough to not be INDISCRIMINATE and the subjects are PUBLICFIGUREs. If public figures are self-disclosing I don't see how this would be an issue. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~and Reframe~~ per reasons above. Movies Time (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At one point, ALL public officials in the PH will be tested, and maybe even hundreds of thousands of other known personalities as the pandemic drags on. I agree that the list is WP:indiscriminate~~, what i think is more useful is a list of known personalities who not only underwent testing but actually tested positive or died due to covid19. (But this could be indiscriminate too)~~ As for the VIP testing controversy, that's the one that should have an article, with a qualified or limited list of those officials who actually circumvented the testing protocol, and not all public officials who got tested per se. No point in keeping this article to redirect to the VIP testing controversy article.--RioHondo (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I now agree with your last statement of moving creating a new VIP testing controversy article. Following that up, the list must now be as it is, narrowed down, and new public officials or personalities who followed the proper triage and tested positive or negative must not be added. There is now a background section written thanks to @Chieharumachi:.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suggest moving this list article to the controversy article as it will leave behind a trace or a redirect from this indiscriminate article. My suggestion is to WP:NUKEIT in favor of the controversy article. If the term VIP is unacceptable to some, i suggest going for a neutral article title, say 2020 Philippine coronavirus testing controversy, which covers both the lack of testing kits in PH and the VIP priority list, both very controversial topics as of the moment, i believe.--RioHondo (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RioHondo: Agreed. Changed my mind; created a new draft.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Draft:2020 Philippine coronavirus testing controversy is a valid subject of a Wikipedia article. It isn't just a list of people and their test results, it's about a controversy in Philippine society. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is what I call an encyclopedic article. That's probably what this article's creator had in mind and not the names of officials and their test results (like seriously?). I say we ditch this article and focus on that one as this is even worse than the List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 that got deleted. Transfer those VIPs to the controversy article please. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 06:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - Both articles sorely need copyediting. Do we continue expanding the article here despite the AfD? And when the AfD results come in as "delete," can we be sure that the edits done on this page will be passed on to the draft article before it goes live? - Alternativity (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. But as the List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 was already deleted, i suggest saving a copy of your edits because this is not very different from that list. The PH coronavirus article/navbox already links to this but under the title "coronavirus testing controversy", just need to redirect it once the draft moves into main space.--RioHondo (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:IINFO. Even if we assume there aren't BLP problems with this list, I fail to see the utility to the reader. We are not a repository of epidemiological data at the level of individuals. A person tested negative today can be tested positive tomorrow. To the extent the tests of these public figures impact Filipino politics, it should be mentioned in their articles, or in the articles about the pandemic in the Philippines. Sandstein 20:31, 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 merge to 2020 Summer Olympics#Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and postponement. Clear consensus that the article cannot stay on its own. Seems like there is a consensus as well that some of the material can be kept in the main Olympics article(s) so this is a merge rather than plain deletion, with the exact nature of the content to be kept presumably up for discussion through the usual means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the 2020 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

This does not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability. The article was created when there was speculation about what impact the pandemic would have on the games, but has blown out of proportion. We now know that the games will not be held on the date originally planned, so the short paragraph on that can be moved to the main page for the 2020 Summer Olympics if it's not already there. The rest of the article is piecemeal coverage about qualifiers in individual countries. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another collection of NEWS tidbits that don't add up to an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have to keep this for now as discussing about the Olympic qualifying matches that will be resumed in June. ApprenticeFan work 01:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? We have an article called 2020 Summer Olympics already. Drmies (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: Cancelled qualifiers can be mentioned elsewhere. This article's purpose is now moot. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the info that we have at this moment is just routine news coverage announcing the postponement. If more in-depth stuff pops up in the future, then the article can be re-created. But otherwise, like others have said before, it can just be its own little blurb on the 2020 Summer Olympics page and the Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports page. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The impact of this pandemic on the Tokyo 2020 is very large, and the notability is high, too.--Shwangtianyuan Defeat the virus together 06:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics. Since the IOC has announced that it is going to reschedule the entire Olympics, we don't need sport-by-sport coverage of the cancelled/postponed qualifying tournaments in this separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This frenzy to list every item in the news in the encyclopedia does not require this page: "Everything was canceled or postponed" gets you the gist. Details can go in the main Olympics page, the individual event pages, and the Impact on Sports page. Reywas92^Talk 06:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge selectivwly merge the important information into the Olympics page. We don't need a separate page for this. Frankly the number of "Impact of coronavirus on X" pages are getting silly. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "piecemeal coverage about qualifiers in individual countries" is not true. It's not about individual countries but about the international Olympic qualification tournaments. This information should be kept together. 31.201.130.50 (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics#Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and postponement (or whatever the section is called when this closes) per Metropolitan90. Merge whatever bits are useful per Reywas92. Sdkb (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics#Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and postponement,it is not necessary to write an article. --Itw (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is that, we may consider making a temporary redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics#Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and postponement, and when there is enough information, the redirect may be rewritten as an article immediately. The rewrite should be discussed in somewhere suitable if someone wants to do so. Σαν μο σα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 14:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics#Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and postponement or merge with Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports — RealFakeKim T 17:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics; there is just about nothing to say except that it was postponed to 2021. It would make much more sense just to discuss the qualifying tournaments in the article in which they would normally be discussed, because all the upcoming ones have been postponed. This is really an indiscriminate list.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Keep Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics#Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and postponement as the Summer Olympics is the overall theme, or simply keep it as it has received significant coverage around the globe to make it its own notable topic.Factlibrary1 (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but merge (or summarize and merge) with Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports for some contents and 2020 Summer Olympics for others (up to other editors for selection of contents to be merged). Agree to RealFakeKim and Joseph2302. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary fork of 2020 Summer Olympics. Tracking day-by-day developments in a seperate article comes under WP:NOTNEWS. SpinningSpark 10:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics#Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and postponement - WP:NOTNEWS. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep as main page is over 100k in size. 75.111.8.64 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more self-contained things that could be broken out to reduce the page size. All the tables of venues is a good candidate—that just breaks up the flow of the article. SpinningSpark 01:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reality of the situation is that the coronavirus epidemic will have significant and lasting flow-on effects on many aspects of society, both large and small. If there is significant widespread coverage of the smaller things being affected, then there isn't really any reason to exclude it on the basis that it's a smaller matter than much more important issues; Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we can afford to go into more minute detail on very specific topics. As an example of a similar "smaller issue" affected by the coronavirus pandemic, see Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the video game industry. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have far too many "Impact of the coronavirus on X" pages, and keeping this one is just compounding the problem. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (though I don't believe that one should exist either). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a link to an essay within WP namespace is not a silver bullet within a discussion, and you have not fully addressed my points yet. I believe I've provided a reasonable use of examples in an attempt to explain my point, and am not merely arguing that "other stuff exists". Consider also Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry - as I've mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.
WP:WikiProject Military History consists of editors who are skilled on writing articles about military history, and focus on writing articles about military history;
WP:WikiProject Video games consists of editors who are skilled on writing articles about video games, and focus on writing articles about video games;
WP:WikiProject Sports consists of editors who are skilled on writing articles about sports, and focus on writing articles about sports.
There is nothing strange about editors who specialise within niche areas to write about how a major global event has affected their specific niche interest, as long as what they're writing meets WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand there are specialisms. And I understand sport- I actually have a sport DYK on the front page right now. And I don't believe the article is needed, because the relevant information (the Games postponement, torch relay) can go in the main 2020 Summer Olympics article and the postponement of qualifying can go in all the appropriate qualifying articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge: While it is clear that the unprecedented postponement of the Summer Olympics is worth noting, I don't see any reason for us to create another page or Wikipedia entry entirely devoted to that matter. A lot of sporting events other than the Olympics have either cancelled or postponed as well, including the qualifying rounds for most of Olympic sports. It's better to briefly include a section in the main Tokyo 2020 page about the postponement, and merge other important details (e.g. qualifying events that got cancelled) into one entry outlining the impact of Coronavirus in sports in general. Jpbpunzalan (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2020 Summer Olympics#Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and postponement: the disjointed directory-like list of cancellations, together with the reactions and financial impact sections, could easily be summarized in the corresponding section of the main article. Unnecessary WP:SPINOFF. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per MarkH21 above. It Is Me Here (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING (esp. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOMUCH) – any relevant main points can be better summarised in Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on sports#Summer Olympics and/or 2020 Summer Olympics#Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and postponement (the latter is already bloated with excessive micro-details).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] All companies are, in a sense, legal fictions. Monsanto is a legal fiction for 25,500 people, though, and we can't have an article about all of them. I'm sure Buckingham is an intelligent man, but to claim him as the brains behind a company founded in 1901 feels a bit tenuous. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

[a]