Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 May	20 May >

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 as to both articles. BD2412 T 04:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Q8C Ramadan Invitational[edit]

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

Non-notable video game tournament with no reliable third-party sources. I placed a CSD tag earlier, but some IP address removed it (wouldn't doubt it was the creator himself since he deleted another CSD tag on another page). JTtheOG (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 21:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to both articles. BD2412 T 04:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q8C Ramadan Invitational[edit]

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

Creator deleted CSD tag but otherwise, the page is a non-notable video game tournament with no reliable third-party sources. JTtheOG (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a clear as day delete here as it's not notable and would probably be better suited to Liquipedia (if they accept national competitions) HawkAussie (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 21:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this mean that Q8C Pro Clubs Premier League should be AfD nominated? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just realized creator deleted CSD tag on that page as well. JTtheOG (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 04:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Legault[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I can't find anything better than mere-mentions online, and the only cited source with more significant coverage than that is this interview in a source that does not look reliable. On the WP:NACTOR front, Legault appears to have had exactly one significant role in a notable production (her role in The Walking Dead) and thus falls short of the notability criteria included there. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject of article is an actor but doesn’t satisfy any criterion listed at WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I looked for additional sources and didn't find any independent sigcov. gnu 57 17:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There are some sources at newspapers.com in relation to theatre work, which I will apply to have clipped. They may push the subject over the line for WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources (the last is just a passing mention, but it verifies the subject's role in The Walking Dead): here, here and here. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NACTOR and the basic requirements for notability of ANYBIO. ——Serial^# 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mashkiran Jo Goth[edit]

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

I can't find any independent coverage of the subject, searching on Google with both its English transliteration and the Sindhi title provided in this article. Nominally it meets WP:NSERIES, but given the total absence of usable coverage online I felt that it would be best to bring this to an AfD discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I sent this to draft because the sourcing was so poor and it looks like the article creator just pushed it back into mainspace. Searching in Sindhi brings up only YouTube, Facebook and twitter. Mccapra (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lejos de Casa: Exodo Venezolano[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews, no awards, just a handful of announcements for "references". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – passes the GNG. Substantial independent coverage exists in a variety of Spanish-language sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], among others. CJK09 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets GNG. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to expand this article significantly in the next day or two. CJK09 (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not going to have time for this unfortunately, I got ahead of myself and committed to rescuing too many articles at once. Since this one is now in no danger of deletion I'm going to put it aside at least for now. CJK09 (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Content needs to be sourced if there is to be a merge. consensus is this isn't sourced so delete is the policy based argument. No objection to a redirect going in later. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Road Pig[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG through a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Sourced to an action figure database (likely non-RS), the comics and TV episodes themselves (primary source), and an "official" book about GI Joe that appears to not be independent, and thus a primary source. A further WP:BEFORE search turns up action figure sales sites, fansites, user-generated databases, etc. The best merge/redirect target is also up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreadnoks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkeywrench (G.I. Joe) is also a related discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either to Dreadnoks or to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Factions if the AFD on that article closes as a merge there. BOZ (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails GNG, as it is sourced entirely to primary sources, it fails WP:PLOT, as it is written from an entirely in-universe perspective, there is nothing to merge anywhere, and there is no suitable redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Devonian Wombat. A minor fictional character, whose article has no information sourced to reliable, secondary sources. Searching for sources also turns up nothing substantial in reliable sources. The character is not important enough to even mention in other articles, and there is no reliably sourced information to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dreadnoks (or Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Factions if that discussion ends up as a merge). List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero action figures might be a suitable target for consideration as well. As an aside, I really enjoy the juxtaposition of Hog Farm nominating Road Pig for deletion. Is there some Freudian message there? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No compelling evidence that this needs to be merged, as it's entirely non-notable fancruft and is not a pertinent search term._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Factions if the topic is mentioned there (with ref), delete if it is not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no out of universe content or notability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Vardiman[edit]

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

WP:FRINGEBLP of a rather obscure creationist who is not notable for being a WP:PROF nor is he particularly notable as a creationist (sources are extremely lacking). jps (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are so many more actual scientists and respectable academics that don't have Wikipedia pages, so the inclusion of this non-notable person is egregious. GPinkerton (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can write about creationists when they're notable (e.g., Duane Gish or Paul Nelson); this one isn't. XOR'easter (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a CV with a picture; nothing notable here. --Kbabej (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are unreliable and affiliated, and there's nothing obvious to replace them. Guy (help!) 21:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable; his "publication list" shows he has never done legitimate scholarship. NightHeron (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched his name in Google Scholar. The first entry says "Cited by 147" of these, most are "friendly" citations, but I found three critical ones from American Scientist, the Geological Society, London, and ohiolink.edu . His name rings up 525 entries on Google Scholar, and I have to get to page 6 of the entries to find his articles which were cited only once. I expect most are friendly citations, but I would be surprised if none were critical. On the other hand, Duane Gish gets a whopping 2,490 results, so User:XOR'easter has a point that he is less notable than Duane Gish. (Paul Nelson is a common name so searching is not useful). So in short he is less notable, but still meets GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Manually adding up his Google Scholar citation counts, I get an h-index of 12, which (a) is too low to make a case for notability even if it were a trustworthy number, and (b) inflated by creationist literature making it untrustworthy. So, while there's not nothing, there also isn't enough. A real scientist who gets all of 3 citations in reliable sources wouldn't be notable, either. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, he's a WP:FRINGE researcher, so we need mainstream coverage of him; citation circles of other creationists aren't going to count towards notability. But I found nontrivial coverage of Vardiman and his creationist work, from what appear to be reliably published sources following the mainstream scientific point of view, in Alters "A Content Analysis of the Institute for Creation Research's Institute on Scientific Creationism", Creation/Evolution [5], Collins & Collins "Pleistocene continental Glaciers: A single Ice Age Following a Genesis Flood or multiple Ice Ages?", Reports of the NCSE [6], Heaton "Recent Developments in Young-Earth Creationist Geology", Science & Education, doi:10.1007/s11191-008-9162-6, and Stix et al, "Science versus Antiscience?", Scientific American, JSTOR 24993570. So he appears to have a plausible case for being notable for his fringe beliefs. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere mention of a person, publication, or talk is not much on which to base a biography. I look at the first source you list and it gives nothing more than a report on a talk Vardiman gave about his denial of ice age timescales. This hardly seems relevant to the biography of this person. It may be relevant for some article that details the intricacies of creationist talking points. The other articles are similarly focused not on Vardiman but on creationist ideology for which he is merely a mouthpiece. I just don't see any biographical material that we can include from those sources. jps (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If he is to be notable as a creationist-young-earth-ice-age-theorist or whatever, then it is exactly in-depth coverage of his creationist-young-earth-ice-age-theories that we need, not coverage of his breakups with his girlfriends or his favorite places to get his hair done. If we required that of all biographical articles we'd be stuck with an encyclopedia only of vapid celebrities famous for being famous. And it is exactly in-depth coverage of his creationist-young-earth-ice-age-theories that the sources I listed provide. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I rather think that he himself is not all that notable, but rather his particular young-earth approach was one of many that NCSE and other 90s debunking outfits saw fit to include in their compendiums. There are dozens if not hundreds of similar obscure arguments documented at the Talk.origins archive, for example. I do not think each one deserves a standalone article, let alone a biographical sketch. jps (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Conservative Woman[edit]

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

Promotional article on a blog, created by SPA. No evidence of notability, neither in the presented sources nor in a WP:BEFORE. Lots and lots of WP:REFSPAM - but only one reference link that even mentions the site itself (the New European link) - none of the other references are about The Conservative Woman blog, they're about the authors or contributors. A quick WP:BEFORE showed nobody talking about this site. The previous AFD ended "no consensus" and talked about newspapers discussing the site - but they're not in evidence. At the least, the long sections puffing up the authors need cutting - I was going to cut those, but then the article would literally only have the New European link as a reference. David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doesn't pass the WP:GNG: there's not in-depth coverage of The Conservative Woman in independent reliable sources, which is reflected in the lack of material in the article. Ralbegen (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG - the references in the article don't seem to talk about "The Conservative Woman", rather, about its contributors/founders, and several which are references to the website itself. Also, I can't seem to find any sources elsewhere that demonstrate its notability. Seagull123 Φ 15:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Savateev (interior designer)[edit]

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

Non notable interior decorator who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence does not satisfy WP:GNG. A before I conducted only shows links to his personal website & other sources not independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could not help but notice that the article creator spent their first ten edits on WP adding user boxes to their user page, then created this article on the eleventh edit.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, quite strange indeed.Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is this an AfD for a draft? Or am I looking at this incorrectly? --Kbabej (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej:It seems that the article creator has moved the article to draft (sort of a pro move for someone with 12 edits), after it was nominated at AfD. We may need some admin or pagemover help here to avoid creating more redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatMontrealIP (talk • contribs)

ThatMontrealIP, I have moved it back accordingly. This editor is proving to be problematic.Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: I left a UPE notice on their page.ThatMontrealIP (talk)

ThatMontrealIP, definitely looks like the case here. I left a soft warning on their tp right now.Celestina007 (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail. I was interested in one source in detail, the "A Design Award" listed in the infobox. On the award's web site, "a more advanced and accurate, paid service (Professional Preliminary Evaluation and Judging) is available on order." for your entry to their competition. Then you also have to pay to submit, aka "Pay to play". I clicked through a bunch of leading questions and found out I could be guaranteed an award for 825 Euro, because my "design is highly likely to win a Silver or Bronze A' Design Award". This was a surprise as my design skills are good, but not always prize-winning. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable interior designer, does not pass WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable interior designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Theft Auto V characters[edit]

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

It's important for context first of all to read over last month's AfD involving all prior series entries' character list articles, where consensus was to delete/redirect to the relevant game's main article. This article was mentioned there, but it was suggested that what we have here is more substantiative and that any potential AfD for this page be conducted separately. So, I disagree with the first notion but agree with the second, and here we are. Much of the content this article hinges itself on is copy-pasted directly from Development of Grand Theft Auto V. If we were to subtract that from the article, we'd be left with a crufty list that fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE #5 and #6. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article definitely has more substance than those in the aforementioned AfD, but still not enough to justify its existence. It has 18 sections for different characters—four of these include commentary on the character development, and after some research I think only three more (Lester, Jimmy, Tracey) have the potential for minor expansion. A list of seven characters (of which two are considered "supporting" and three are copied directly from the development article) simply fails to stand on its own per WP:LISTN, and the other 12 sections are just pure WP:PLOT. – Rhain ☔ 00:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: If consensus heads this way, we can add those tid-bits about other characters to the Development article. I have the sources saved. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of TV shows, books, and games have character lists on Wikipedia. GTA V is the second best selling game of all time. If any game deserves a list of characters, its this one. Quick searches suggest that there have been plenty of articles written about characters in this game. If we delete this, lets delete every character list off this website. Bluedude588 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluedude588: Saying that WP:OTHERSTUFF exists doesn't make a compelling argument. How are game sales relevant? If you can find sourcing that expounds on the character development, design and/or reception of multiple GTA V characters—not just in-universe, crufty plot details—and if that provides enough content to merit (WP:LISTN) an entire article, that will lend your argument more weight. As far as my research has taken me (not to stroke my ego, but I have 2 FA's, a GA and a FL specific to the GTA V topic), it isn't there. There's plenty of coverage on the three leads but that's not enough to hang an entire article for all the characters on. Trevor Philips meets WP:GNG (the other two, perhaps not) and we already have the relevant analysis at the Development article already. Lists of TV/film/game characters should have established notability if there has been commentary from high-quality, reliable sources (WP:V) such that it's necessary to branch out from a parent article. If they don't, this is not the forum for an article about them. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would it be appropriate to convert the article into something like "List of Grand Theft Auto V protagonists"? These three do appear to have received some degree of coverage in regard to development and reception. If you argue that what we have just enough to merge the protagonists' individual developments to Development of Grand Theft Auto V, I would favour merger and deletion, obviously (deletion instead of redirection to avoid IP edit war standoffs). Everything else in the article, from "Central characters" down, is entirely in-universe (with the exception of one line about Ron, sourced to a local newspaper) and not worth keeping, regardless of the outcome of this AfD. IceWelder [✉] 17:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder: The information in the list regarding Michael and Franklin actually already exists over at the development article—it was copied directly from there to here—so there's no need to merge anything else. The protagonists article is not a bad idea, but with all of the information already existing elsewhere (not to mention that one of the three protagonists has their own article), I'm not sure it would work. – Rhain ☔ 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I double-checked and indeed, the "Creation and conception" section in this article is merely a poorer (older?) version of the "Story and character development" in the article about the development as a whole, with some lines ripped out and moved to the individual characters' sections. If the article is only kept alive through a copy-paste from another article, it might as well be deleted. IceWelder [✉] 07:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I particpated in the two previous AfDs related to Rockstar Games' character lists (1, 2) and !voted for them to be redirected to their main article. However, this game is the second best selling video game and I am certain enough coverage is out there for this be fleshed out. I am going to start improving the list with better sourcing to see what can be done. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've come back to this article many times over the years and have never been able to find anything substantial enough to stop it from being a massive retelling of the plot, but I hope that you can prove otherwise. – Rhain ☔ 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spy-cicle: Are you able to provide an update with how you're going? You said you would find some better sourcing and improve the article, but save for tweaking the lead, you haven't made any substantive changes yet. — CR4ZE (T • C) 09:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I was busier with other things than expected, but I will see what I can do in a over the coming days. (I was just about to publish this edit but I realised has been 7 days since its nomination I don't know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 01:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold, could I suggest then that perhaps the issued raised about the article are insurmountable in the context of this AfD? I'd love to see a situation where it was possible to rescue the article but from my perspective, it doesn't seem that way. Your thoughts? — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a WP:TNT situation? If so, I do see your point there are large part with just plot infomation (I mean the amount of detail on a small side character like Lazlow is prime example of that). I mean I suppose it could be sent back to draft where there are no time limits to rework/expand the list. Though I do agree with others that there is a fair bit of coverage of Michael De Santa and Franklin Clinton but indivdually less than Trevor Phillips. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, no. I'm suggesting that if the sourcing existed in the first place, it wouldn't have to take an AfD to rescue the page. You're welcome of course to develop further in draft space, just be wary that you would need to establish a list that is substantial enough to be notable without violating VGSCOPE 5/6. As I've said, I think this would be infeasible, but if you think you can prove me wrong with a draft, please do so. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grand Theft Auto V. Enough RS coverage may be out there to keep this list but within the time looking I was not able to find it and at the moment it is mostly WP:PLOT. I might work on a draft in the future if I get enough time. Michael De Santa and Franklin Clinton should also be redirected back to Grand Theft Auto V. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 09:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reliable secondary sources that could justify an expansive list about the entire cast. Ironically, I do think there's an encyclopedic article to be created here. We already have Trevor Philips. This isn't anything but a hunch, but I bet Michael De Santa/Townley and Franklin Clinton have some potential. Agree with CR4ZE that the character coverage is probably around those protagonists, if anything, and that what coverage we could find is already at the main game article. If someone wanted to show notability, I feel like that might yield some potential. I have only found trivial mentions at first glance. Jontesta (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is that Michael De Santa and Franklin Clinton scrape just under the WP:GNG, but I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary. Trevor Philips has been the subject of much wider discussions within the gaming community—he was a considerably eccentric and divisive character and was also central to the torture controversy. Plus, we have more analysis on Ogg's contributions and the overall character development. — CR4ZE (T • C) 03:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rhain. I trust their judgment about the WP:JUSTPLOT and lack of sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Good faith attempts to make this work as a stand-alone list have tried and come up short. No third party sources that can provide real-world context and importance, as per WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The key argument is the overbroadness of the subject but I'd be happy to provide the content if someone wanted to work on it to find a way to makenthe content manageable Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of mass murders[edit]

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

The list's definition is so broad as to include and overlap the existing articles of List of terrorist incidents and List of mass shootings in the United States to name a couple. The list is woefully incomplete and includes only a select few acts from 2019 specifically. Moreover, the essence of Mass murder itself is so broad that such a list will never be in a complete or useful form for readers to process. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly incomplete and I'm sure these events are already mentioned in other lists. – zmbro _(talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not all mass murders are shootings nor acts of terrorism. If there are criteria questions, that should be worked out on the talk page first, and that has not even been attempted here. Note also we have Category:Mass murders to which this is a complement. postdlf (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I didn't intend to say that all mass murders are shootings and acts of terrorism. Those are just a couple of examples. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Does each category require a list of all of its members, sub-members, sub-sub-members, etc.? Category:Mass murders has thousands of pages in its category tree, many of which belong to more specific subcategories, e.g. Category:Genocides in Asia. Mass murder already exists, and complements its category, as noted on the category page: Category:Mass murders. I don't think we need List of mass murders to complement Category:Mass murders for the same reason we don't need List of crops to complement Category:Crops. This is a list that cannot approach becoming exhaustive, and even an attempt to make it close to exhaustive would result in a massive, unusable page supplanted by more useful specific pages. Please see Disadvantages of a list#6 from the MOS. Some topics are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Converting this into a list of lists might then be a good idea. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesnt seem like a terribly useful page and anyway the current page isn’t really extensive enough to go to bat for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT There seem to be a large number of mass murders in the various subcategories of the mass murder category. Mass murders listed by year and country seem to be more reasonable. Note that Category:Mass murders is in Category:Mass murder which has far more things in it. Dream Focus 02:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think making an article with such a broad subject is a bad idea. Theres just so many mass murders. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Tan[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. I haven't found any IRS. Less Unless (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 10:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of the Philippines by longevity[edit]

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

Redundant. List of presidents of the Philippines by age could easily cover the same info. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 20:18, 19 May 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 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (speedily?). There has a been a merger proposal open for a year with some support and no objections. Not all mergers need to go through AfD; the local consensus suffices. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, I intended to have the faulty redirect, List of presidents, vice presidents, first spouses and second spouses of the Philippines by longevity deleted insteadHariboneagle927 (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is not a valid disambiguation, it is a list of articles that have the word bitcoin in the name. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both Bitcoin Foundation (a Foundation named Bitcoin) and Bitcoin Magazine (a magazine called Bitcoin) are valid items. The others are See also and may be removed if desired. But the page needs to be kept on the merit of the two items I have mentioned. Even Bitcoin Center NYC is valid. A center in New York called Bitcoin is also valid to my mind werldwayd (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your statements are misleading. There is no magazine called Bitcoin, it is Bitcoin Magazine and there is no foundation called Bitcoin, it is rather Bitcoin Foundation. Nonsense assertions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid disambiguation page, the front cover of Bitcoin magazine has Bitcoin in large capitals with smaller text below saying magazine so its not nonsense that it can be referred to as Bitcoin, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cesare Catania[edit]

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

This looked real enough when I started cleaning it up. However after removing a number of faked sources (press releases on blogs, primarily), finding next to nothing in RS in a search and finally examining more of the existing sources (E.G. luxurynewsonline.com monacolifestylemagazine.com), I am more or less convinced that this is a publicity job. A number of the "reporting" sources I removed also had the artist's web site listed, which is the mark of advertising, not journalism.

See for example the news item here, and in particular at the bottom where it says ""Promoted by Cesare Catania ART / www.cesarecatania.eu/milano-design-week-2019 / Communication by MADE4ART“.
This source, currently used in the article, has the artist's web site, Facebook and Youtube channels included.
This archived source,currently used in the article, clearly states "Press Release" at the top.
This source, currently used in the article, also has the artist's site, Facebook, Youtube and Instagram links, and included the text "Press Office Cesare Catania Art".
My Italian is so-so, but I am guessing that the headline for this supposed 'source' translates to "The great success of Cesar Catania at Montevideo"...
This source has to be from a press release, as it includes the artist's web site.
Luxurynewsonline.com is careful to include his Facebook, web site and Instagram URLs in the article. Good job.
Finally, when I found this article on riveiera-buzz.com in a search, I was pretty sure something was up. It included his phone number, address and email and says that Once or twice in every generation, a visual artist emerges who stands out from the rest and who will go down in the annals of art history. For the early 21st century, that person has come into focus: Italian painter and sculptor Cesare Catania.

I don't agree. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A number of actual sources are mixed in with all the ~~garbage~~ self-promotion.

Participation at 7° biennale d’arte internazionale di Montecarlo^[1] [unsure if this is indeed RS]
Article about The Heart of the Earth - B Version^[2]
~~Article about Monte Carlo exhibition^[3] [fairly promotional language, but I could not find evidence that this isn't a RS]~~
Exhibition at Barclays Bank of Monte Carlo^[4]

userdude 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC); struck #3 23:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UserDude:, I only looked at one, as I am pretty much convinced at this point. From your list, the text at the bottom of source 3 translates from the Italian to "Source: Sabrina Fraschibi, Cesare Catania Press Office ART In the photo in evidence: the artist Cesare Catania".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UserDude: OK, I can't look away... here is the press release, with contact info, that source number two in your list was copied from. This is the article with the headline "the grand success of the artist Cesar...", which is not how journalists write.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the farecultura.net source was copied from the presswire.com press release. The press release is from July 2018, the article is from October 2017.~~ userdude 23:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were actually referring to the artemagazine.it source (you linked to the wrong url), which came out on 19 July while the press release is from 26 July. userdude 23:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I got a link wrong, but does it really matter? All I have seen so far is a dozen or so sources that are clear PR junk, and several more that are likely PR junk. There's no evidence of independent coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a lot of PR junk but there may also be independent coverage. If there exists sufficient coverage to meet WP:N, it shouldn't matter that PR junk also exists. I didn't mean to insult you by pointing out your incorrect link, it's just that it wasn't until I already checked the sources that I noticed it was the wrong link. I don't understand why you say the the artemagazine.it source was copied from the presswire.com press release. Could you explain your reasoning on this? userdude 06:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of someone finding a pint of strawberries that have gone moldy. They dig in the pint and miraculously find one good strawberry. The pint is still bad.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict reply to Special:Diff/957722536) I'm not proposing that the press release copied the article, it just didn't seem to me like either copied the other. Rereading the articles, there is some very similar language: (differences underlined)

In questa opera d'arte Cesare Catania ha voluto concentrare tutta la forza degli elementi considerati di maggiore impatto energetico: la pramide rovesciata e la sfera, la polvere di marmo proveniente dalla Terra e i frammenti di meteorite proveniente dall'Universo.
In questa opera Catania ha voluto concentrare tutta la forza degli elementi considerati di maggiore impatto energetico: la pramide rovesciata e la sfera, la polvere di marmo proveniente dalla Terra e i frammenti di meteorite proveniente dall'Universo.

While it's not unheard of for a press release to copy a favorable review, given the fact that the press release doesn't name the review, I am inclined to agree that it's likely that the artemagazine.it article is heavily based off promotional material, perhaps even the press release before it was published on presswire.com. Even assuming, arguendo, that the two remaining sources are completely independent, I find them insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST and change my !vote to delete accordingly.07:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

(Reply to Special:Diff/957722614) The point is moot as I've already changed my !vote, but I disagree with this sentiment. Continuing your analogy, the proper course of action would not be to throw away the entire pint of strawberries, but to throw away the rotten and eat the fresh. The proper course of action on Wikipedia would be to remove the promotional content and rewrite the article in accordance with RS. (See Throw the baby out with the bath water.) userdude 07:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an aside, you're entirely within your right to change your comment before anyone else replies (WP:REDACTED), but I ask that you note your change in edit summary instead of saying "ce" in your summary when you actually made material changes. (Special:Diff/957719532, Special:Diff/957719795). Thanks, userdude 07:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re #3: Ah, that makes sense. I originally misread the disclaimer at the bottom as only referring to the credit for the image. userdude 23:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Alla Biennale di Montecarlo anche l'artista italiano Cesare Catania". www.paeseitaliapress.it (in Italian). Retrieved 2020-05-19.
^ Redazione. "L'Arte al centro dell'Universo. Cesare Catania alla Biennale d'arte a Saint Paul de Vence". www.artemagazine.it (in Italian). Retrieved 2020-05-19.
^ "Grande successo di Cesare Catania durante l'ultima esposizione a Montecarlo -" (in Italian). Retrieved 2020-05-19.
^ "La Barclays Bank di Monte Carlo sceglie l'artista italiano Cesare Catania per la sua nuova esposizione d'arte nella sede del Principato di Monaco". Montecarlonews.it (in Italian). 2019-05-13. Retrieved 2020-05-19.

Delete Promocruft that doesn't meet GNG or NARTIST. To engage the second list of maybe not unreliable sources, none of the exhibitions are significant. While I can't find clear evidence that they re pay-to-play, they certainly aren't signficant:
- http://artemonaco.com/ - an insignificant art fair put on by this company http://opuseventi.com/. It is *not* the very significant artmonte-carlo fair[7].
- BIENNALE D’ART MONTECARLO appears to be a 2 day long open call exhibition put on in a hotel https://www.latelaccia.it/en/bienn-2016/ by a random gallery from Milan https://www.latelaccia.it/9-biennale-darte-internazionale-a-montecarlo-2020/
- The exhibition at La Barclays Bank di Monte Carlo was "organizzata e promossa" (organized and promoted) by "Heart Monaco Fine Art" which only appears on the internet in a handfull of promotional results for this Barclays show. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Heart+Monaco+Fine+Art%22

So I'm quite comfortable saying that none of this rises to N. Theredproject (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that Arte Magazine article has no byline: "Scritto da Redazione".[8] This is often a sign that something is press release copypasta. Thought it seems like many of their articles have that byline, so maybe this is more like a personal blog?Theredproject (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illini 4000 for Cancer[edit]

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

I've declined an A7 request on this as I think the film is enough to constitute a CCS, but this doesn't appear a particularly notable organisation in Wikipedia terms, and I can't see any potential sources other than passing mentions. ‑ Iridescent 20:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original nominator. As you said, there are not substantial independent sources.--User:Namiba 12:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Mayers[edit]

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

this is nothinng more than a resume, no significant coverage and nothing that would meet most of our n criteria. (and definitely fails NAUTHOR) Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete More Billy Hathorn nonesense Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 19:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I WP:PRODded this because independent sources I found sounded press release-y, had no significant coverage, or both. No new information has come to light that would have me reconsider. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like most Hathorn articles, just WP:REFBOMBed with no actual substance in the sources used. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is just a resume.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Routine of Nepal Banda[edit]

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

Non-notable media outlet. It became a popular facebook page when Nepal used to suffer nationwide strikes every other day. Now that that's over, it's apparently trying to translate that popularity into an internet business. This article is probably meant to help. Note that the article says the official website is "under construction". This is the only known RS coverage. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NORG. Numerous trivial mentions in RS of the organization as a Facebook page but no in-depth coverage besides the Kathmandu Post article. Not enough to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. userdude 20:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not the greatest discussion of all time, but consensus is pretty clear that WP:ANYBIO#1 is met. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Jabbar[edit]

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

The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and is a case of 15 minutes of fame. The subject got publicity for a one time award event and fails to meet long term sustenance which is necessary to ensure the maintenance of an article at WP. Yourmasterishere (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC. userdude 19:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per ANYBIO#1 (see below) userdude 00:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nari Shakti Puraskar may qualify Jabbar for WP:ANYBIO#1; I am unfamiliar with the award and will not make a judgement on if the award is well-known and significant. Excluding consensus that the award qualifies for WP:ANYBIO#1, my !vote remains delete. userdude 20:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. userdude 20:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that your vote is delete unless everyone else says the award is significant in which case you are voting keep? There is an article about Nari Shakti Puraskar (on Wikipedia) with several Presidents of India, ministers and Prime ministers indicating that the award may pass a test for notable to the odd billion people. Victuallers (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-These are the views of the user who created this article and is the only editor who ever contributed for this article Yourmasterishere (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you just about hit the nail on the head. Jabbar fails BASIC and may meet ANYBIO#1. If the award is deemed well-known and significant (read: significant enough for ANYBIO#1), then the closer should consider my !vote a keep; otherwise BASIC applies, in which case my !vote should be considered a delete. userdude 18:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to qualify for WP:ANYBIO as UserDude noted above, so WP:BASIC applies. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the highest award for women in a country with a population three times the size of the USA. A "one off event" because one day she magically transformed her land ... um no ... and ... as if she didn't also get The Wildlife Trust of India noting her land as "a Green Corridor Champion of North Bengal". Oh, but they did. The rationale stated here is not convincing. I see no evidence of searching to confirm the proposal to see what the University of Montana or Vogue India think about her notability. Victuallers (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-These are the views of the user who created this article and is the only editor who ever contributed for this article Yourmasterishere (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.... that was the view of the editor who created this nomination!!! ... this is another comment by the editor called out as the author ... Yep it was me who created the article and did the research (COI declaration (really???) - and I still see no evidence of a search to establish notability or a credible rationale. Victuallers (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable indivual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has very low standards for inclusion as described at WP:GNG. This biography seems to pass. We know that this person won an award of the sort that Wikipedia notes, the Nari Shakti Puraskar, and we know that this person is also discussed in third party media. This does not seem so complicated to me. Source for award + any other source seems like a pass to me. I am coming here following a post at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Notable_awards_-_Nari_Shakti_Puraskar. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nari Shakti Puraskar is enough for WP:ANYBIO#1; so if there is independent coverage for a stub (which it seems there is), we should keep it and let it develop. I had participated in the noticeboard thread about the award but did not come looking for this AFD, I happened upon it scrolling through Deletion sorting/India. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be absolutely no scope to develop this article as there is nothing left to add. Further, it seems to fail WP:INDEPENDENT as well which appears when we scrutinize the deftly articulated refs. Right now, its having 7 refs out of which, ^[1], ^[2] & ^[3] are based on personal interview with the subject individual and hence they will be categorized as WP:PRIMARY. ^[4] is just an image of the subject getting the award. This is not adding any value as we already know from the first segment that the subject has received the award. Thus this is not a ref at all. ^[5] is again irrelevant and moreover from Facebook (Social Media) and therefore it is completely irrelevant.^[6] is about 2017 award, while the subject received the award in 2018, therefore again irrelevant. ^[7] could not be accessed as it was locked for premium membership. There has to have sufficient notability for an individual article to have a page separate from the award page. This article has been edited post when it was listed for deletion, if such kind of refs are being extracted, even after making deep structured query searches, its a sign that the subject lacks notability. Kindly reconsider your opinion.

References

^ December 23, Romita Datta New Delhi; December 31, 2018 ISSUE DATE; December 23, 2018UPDATED; Ist, 2018 12:01. "Mammoth Project | The Social Warriors". India Today. Retrieved 2020-04-26. {{cite web}}: |first4= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Network, Wildlife Friendly Enterprise. "Nuxulbari Tea Estate Becomes 2nd Globally to Earn Elephant Friendly™ Certification". PRLog. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
^ Singh, Kriti (2018-09-18). "Indian tea estate gets world's first 'elephant-friendly' tag". Asia Times. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
^ "Nari Shakti Puraskar - Gallery". narishaktipuraskar.wcd.gov.in. Retrieved 2020-04-11.
^ "Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India". www.facebook.com. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
^ "Nari Shakti of 30 women to be honoured at Rashtrapati Bhavan". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
^ "These 12 women are crusaders of change in the midst of on-going climate crisis". Vogue India. 2020-01-16. Retrieved 2020-05-12.

Yourmasterishere (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what [6] is. Others seem to be verifying something. Not all refs add to notability, but we are not evaluating GNG here. We are looking at additional criteria to decide whether we should maintain the article in the limited form that sources that exist allow. For that purpose, [1] and [5] are sufficient IMO. Facebook doesn't automatically equal bad; a statement from a verified account constitutes a self-published source from the account-holder, and the account holder is a reliable source in this instance. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to admin! the nominator Yourmasterishere is a newly created account & suspicious focusing on this person and other Nari Shakti Puraskar winners! Clearly WP:IDONTLIKE. He/She is a new user but has full knowledge on Wikipedia (mostly AFD) and like an experience editor who have total edit count: 32, so may be a sock account. Moreover, he joined Wikipedia on 3 May 2020 See log here. So I would like to request Check User (CU). Btw, imo, she meets WP:ANYBIO#1 however just comment not vote! 117.18.228.1 (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NSP award + this profile in India Today + coverage here, here, here, here etc is sufficient to establish notability. I believe there is an argument to be made that an article on Nuxalbari Tea Estate would be a better idea than one on Sonia Jabbar since the estate (and its elephant friendly policies) are the locus of Jabbar's fame. But the exact article title and corresponding framing of the content is not a big enough deal to keep this AFD in flux. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors who are interested in this discussion for deletion may also be interested in Smriti Morarka, also a recipient of Nari Shakti Puraskar, clearly meets WP:ANYBIO. 136.228.175.221 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. qedk (t 愛 c) 07:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alois Nashali[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The only notability claim in evidence here is that he won a couple of awards at minor film festivals that aren't highly notable enough to clear WP:ANYBIO — "notable because award" requires awards that get media coverage, and does not attach to awards that can be referenced only to the awarding organization's self-published press releases because journalistic reportage about the award presentation is non-existent. This article, however, is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all — and of the three sources that actually are to real media outlets, one just tangentially verifies the existence of somebody else's film while completely failing to mention Alois Nashali at all, which means it's not relevant support for his notability either.
And of the two real media sources that are about him, they are both just reprints in two different newspapers of the same wire service article, thus combining into one data point for the purposes of determining whether he gets over WP:GNG or not — and they're covering him not in the context of anything related to film, but in the context of having contracted COVID-19 at his day job in a warehouse, thus just making him a WP:BLP1E at best. People do not get an automatic free pass over GNG just because they can show one piece of human interest coverage about their physical health challenges, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well articulated nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing the available sources, I came to the conclusion that Alois Nashali's best claim to notability (as per WP:GNG) is as an Amazon employee among the first to catch the coronavirus... Pretty thin! --Azurfrog (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Porter[edit]

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

Puff piece. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 15:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable dentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive natural language processing[edit]

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

This article appears to be WP:SYNTH. The term "Cognitive natural language processing" barely even exists in the literature, with only a handful of mostly passing mentions. The main article that uses this term, Towards a Cognitive Natural Language Processing Perspective, is not really about this as a subfield, it's just about NLP and cognitive science in general. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Natural Language Processing is the tech and Cognitive Science is the perspective for that tech. Separate article not required. - Hatchens (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YET[edit]

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

Not notable. Article appears to be promotional. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was deleted previously, and undeleted per request today. Is it not premature to put up an AFD 8 hours after undeletion? --SuperJew (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew, how so? Undeletion doesn't mean it's notable, it just means, in this case, that someone contested a PROD after it had run its course. Notability is not temporary, so the subject is either notable or its not. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu Ah got it. So I wasn't clear on what undeletion process is. --SuperJew (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant do so much because of school. Give me some time okay? kikkerdril68 01:42 woensdag 20 mei 2020 (CEST —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kikkerdril68, this discussion will be open for seven days. It could be extended beyond that if there is no consensus by that point. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for "Youth Europe and Theatre". I don't see any coverage at all in reliable sources. The organization's website says that it has been involved in collaborations among a few schools to produce two student shows each year. This is nice, but it is WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made it so it has reliable sources kikkerdril68 —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. kikkerdril68 above stated they "made it so it has reliable sources" but they did not add any sources; rather they stripped the article of much of its content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i didn’t add sources, i made sure it was reliable kikkerdril68 —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By rules of Wikipedia, this article cant be deleted

When to not use deletion process?

Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.

^[1] kikkerdril68 And I’m editing it so therefore it cannot be deleted right now

And I’m editing it so therefore it cannot be deleted right now Yeah that's not...how it works. The article is being nominated for deletion because there are no reliable independent sources about it, not because of any of the stuff you quoted above. You need to provide reliable sources about the article if you want to contest the deletion with any chance of success. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But how is 'www.Yet.nu' an unreliable source?

Please read WP:RS and you will understand what we mean by reliable sources. Generally these are sources independent of the subject of the article and that have an independent editorial board or notable journalist as publisher. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kikkerdril68 —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at the article it has multiple sources about the project

kikkerdril68 —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (nn; found no SIGCOV). - Flori4nKT A L K 11:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. qedk (t 愛 c) 07:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Picks[edit]

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

I had PRODded this, but GB fan pointed out it has been PRODded before. I'm actually not sure what our policy is here, since it was deleted after the PROD, and the policy says "A page is still eligible for proposed deletion if it has previously been proposed for deletion through the WP:BLPPROD or WP:CSD processes"--but not after it has been deleted through the "regular" PROD process? Anyway, AfD will do: this is a list of non-notable DVDs, unverified, whose only verification (AFAIK) can come from primary sources and/or Amazon. In other words, no secondary sourcing, no notability. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is what people did before Netflix and streaming, they bought DVDs with a variety of shows on them. Doesn't mean any media release (or set thereof) is notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Search & Rescue Team[edit]

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

Notability? I see only a number of mentions in local news when the team saves someone. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added two references and I'm sure there's more out there, but there's too much unsourced information in the article. I'm also on the fence about this one meeting GNG. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 07:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These sorts of organisations are generally notable. Covers a fairly wide area. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Juliette Han (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PediaPress[edit]

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

PediaPress is written without a NPOV. It is written out of encyclopedic format. I currently suggest deletion or a full rewrite with non-associated writers. -Kylie Take a look | What have I done? | Talk to me 14:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Kylie Take a look | What have I done

| Talk to me 14:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified on the Wikipedia-Books Wikiproject talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep for all the reasons given in the previous AfD and which are not addressed in this one. Specific issues with the current content should be addressed on the article talk page, not here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons in the last one included that it should be retained because "we shouldn't bite the hand that feeds us" and a WMF-designated idea of notability. Both of those were unsuitable at best, and reprehensible at worst. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this organisation fails GNG and WP:NCORP, the few secondary sources are nothing more than passing mentions. The article is also written like an advertisement. Corporate Spam does not become a-okay just because you like the company that is being advertised. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Pending - I don't believe the organisation meets NCORP, though it might scrape through GNG. I can't get access to some of the sources, so it's a little tricky to determine. As I noted above, I'm firmly against any reasoning to retain on such concerning IAR thoughts. However, with regard to the actual nomination reason, I don't believe the format, or NPOV-level, is so bad as to require a deletion/full re-write on those grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'd read most of the ones below, and a number were ruled out for not meeting Sig Cov once avalanches of quotes were removed. However, I'd missed the "The Impact of Print-On-Demand on Academic Books" source, and I want to redo my BEFORE check. If it's just that, this would now be a weak delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used to work for this company, so I won't be taking a stance either way, but there's a bit of WP:BEFORE here... If you're looking to satisfy GNG, things like

The Verge
CNN
The Impact of Print-On-Demand on Academic Books
[9] / [10] / [11]
[12]

Etc, should be reviewed. There's a lot more out there too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop--there is no deletion rationale. One cannot argue that this is irredeemably promotional, and once upon a time it was a stubby but acceptable article. user:KylieInTheSkylie, for the life of me I can't figure out your signature (can you keep it simple?), but I do know that you need to read up on what these deletion discussions are about. If the content is notable by our standards and the references are good, the article stays. You can rewrite it all you like. So, in case stop wasn't clear: keep. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern about my signature, although that doesn't happen to be the topic of this page. Addressing your concern about the article not being irredeemably promotional, according to the article's talk page it has been promotional since at least 2012 so surely people have noticed this and would've tried to make it conform to WP:NPOV. After looking at the article again, I'd say it could be notable. The whole reason I also gave the suggestion to nuke it is for in the event that it is decided as notable. So, whether you think it should be nuked is your consideration if it does become a option. -Kylie Take a look | What have I done | Talk to me 21:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:KylieInTheSkylie, way to sidetrack. Your signature is still weird, and you still don't have a deletion rationale other than "someone in 2012 said it's promotional". I am not sure why you feel the need to wikilink "nuke"--nothing is going to be nuked: the editor who created this created 184 articles. Do you want those all to be deleted? "Nuke" means mass deletion. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I'm surprised you're not aware that while that's the "formal" meaning of Nuke on Wikipedia, in AfD it is often used as a term for wiping and recommencing an article as the content is completely unsuitable. I don't actually think that applies here, "regular" cleanup would suffice. I also find your "stop" phrasing rather odd, as yes the nom didn't have a legitimate nomination reason but Wombat's delete !vote would be sufficient to prohibit any withdrawal. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone links nuke, it's particular. "Stop" is "stop in the name of love", because this nomination, given the previous outcome and the actual sourcing, means this will not gain consensus to delete. "Stop" does not mean "withdrawal mandatory" or whatever. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anything about this article is unduly promotional, why has none of the plaintiffs edited it back over the years? I have tried to do a little of that from time to time, but I am not familiar enough with the dividing line to do more. I for one would welcome some more knowledgeable edits in that direction. But there's nothing that cannot remain in the article history, nuking in whatever shape or form is a gross overreaction. (and I agree with Drmies that linking to Nuke is equivalent to expressing the meaning defined on the linked page, it is quite inappropriate to this discussion and, worse, could mislead less inexperienced editors.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the linking giving a specific meaning - apologies on my end for that, I'd missed the original link. Nosebagbear (talk)

I'm sorry about that issue, I was not aware of the implications of linking the page. -Kylie Take a look | What have I done | Talk to me 18:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Libertarian Party of Delaware. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Morris (politician)[edit]

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

Founder of a minor state branch of a minor political party, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL per nom. Based on this obit, he never did anything of note outside of his local community. There would need to be evidence of a larger impact to meet any notability threshold. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to redirect to Libertarian Party of Delaware. My rationale still stands, but redirecting is a viable alternative to deletion here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a founder of a minor fringe party could get a person in the door if you could cite enough reliable sourcing to get him over WP:GNG — but it is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to keep an article that's based entirely on primary sources, as this is. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of this article, I'd like to see it rationally/appropriately merged into Libertarian Party of Delaware. I can conduct the merge if needed. Thanks for considering this as an alternative to outright deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Libertarian Party of Delaware or Delete. Plausible search term. I encourage the creator to add relevant and sourced material to the Libertarian Party of Delaware page. --Enos733 (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Libertarian Party of Delaware, of which he was founder based on this obit Djflem (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HTML5 in mobile devices[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Html5 in mobile devices

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

No indication of notability. The lead text simply says that HTML5 should work on desktop and mobile, but everything should work on desktop and mobile. Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The 2018 version of the HTML5 in mobile devices article has a lot more information and better asserts notability. I have also found papers like "Mobile development tools and cross-platform solutions" (IEEE Xplore) and "Cross-platform Mobile Applications with Web Technologies" that discuss HTML5 as an application development platform, that were not in the earlier version of the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there used to be a lot of information there. But much of that content is redundant / obsolete - there's lots of phrases like "Development is in the very early stages" and "improvements in HTML5 for forms could make life easier for mobile applications". peterl (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. The current page has almost nothing in it, and could be merged back into the HTML5 page. peterl (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it doesn't meet WP:GNG. MiasmaEternal^TALK 03:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, as Peter1 says; insufficient sourcing to demonstrate the need for a standalone article. ——Serial^# 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SPA opinions are given little weight due to their lack of experience with Wikipedia standards for inclusion, which all other participants agree this article does not meet. BD2412 T 04:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social class bias on Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

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

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

We already have separate articles on gender, ideological, and racial bias on Wikipedia, and the article Criticism of Wikipedia also gives details about these and other types of bias.

The problem with the "social class bias on Wikipedia" article is that its sources are mostly concerned with the exact same biases again. The article as it stands has 11 references and 2 additional sources. The references are

[13] (ref 1, 3, 4, 6 and 10); a powerpoint introduction on how to edit Wikipedia to counter bias, which doesn't mention social class bias even once
[14] an article on racial bias, no mention of social class
An opinion piece, so not a reliable source, and it doesn't mention "social class" anyway but simply deals with gender bias
[15] A Wired article about gender bias and racial bias on Wikipedia
This pdf doesn't mention social class either, but deals with social norms as they are created on sources like Wikipedia
This pdf again deals with gender bias
This is a definition about "classicism" (not the art style) and doesn't mention Wikipedia

So, none of the sources even mention social class bias... Looking for sources that actually discuss the "social class bias" on Wikipedia proves to be remarkably hard. No (Google-indexed) books seem to have tackled this[16], and similarly in Google News[17] one can easily find articles about the gender bias on Wikipedia, or the racial bias. But social class bias seems to have been neglected in the available sources, which is reflected in the sources used in this article.

Which means that we shouldn't have an article on it either. It isn't even mentioned yet in the Criticism of Wikipedia article; if there has been some study of it anyway, which so far hasn't become truly notable or visible, then a short section or mention there is the way to go. Fram (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have the view that anything more exact than criticism of Wikipedia becomes to self referencial to be worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had no more luck than the nominator finding sources that address this specific issue. With the sources given in the article, it leans a bit toward synthesis. Schazjmd (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments to my !vote: Although this article might make a good paper in a journal or magazine, it is original research. I examined every ref, and read each article and paper and study. I'll put my results at the end of the page for readability. What I found is that the article uses Intersectionality to extend research done on race and gender bias within Wikipedia and apply it to class. It has references about race and gender bias on Wikipedia, and it has references about classism. There were no sources that examine social class bias on Wikipedia. (Let me add, I am not saying there isn't a social class bias problem on Wikipedia; there could be, and there could even be an intersectionality argument to be made. But until there are secondary, independent, reliable sources discussing it in depth, it should not be an article.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2A00:801:42E:D09E:1556:A8C9:A57F:F35E (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC) You may have to read some of the content and not try to CTRL F your way to success here, not everything ever mentioned (in my opinion) tends to occur without any euphemisms for the exact same thing, the first source clearly mentions " class privilege" on page four. So it seems to be some really severe bad luck.[reply]

Also: Wikipedias about page claims that "Wikipedia's greatest strengths, weaknesses, and differences all arise because it is open to anyone", but today Wikipedia has a systemic social class bias, both in terms of content selection and in the userbase.

The wikisurvey also supports the additional information. Regarding the first article "on racial bias", within the context of where it's quoted it seems obvious to me that it's made to refer to the digital divide which is an issue in the racialised community as well as the lower class community. The article explicitly states:"Many of the arguments made regarding the systemic bias against women and racialised people on wikipedia also apply to people of lower social class, as for example a small presence within the technology sector, and a relative lack of reliable access to the Internet" before the source is cited.

The opinion piece written by Susan C. Herring (professor of information science and linguistics) which is argued have no value due to being an opinion piece, actually contains not only opinion, but also information that that's in line with research. But it was surely misplaced, so I can really see why that meant some confusion.

The case for the wierd article is the same, it's cited with a scientific study which also deals with representation, which the article also does.

Reading for context within the text often helps when trying to find out why the source is cited. Also the article claimed to be about "classicism" is about Classism. As a whole this doesn't look like charitable interpretation to me, which seems kind of well... hostile to the principles of the enlightenment. 2A00:801:42E:D09E:1556:A8C9:A57F:F35E (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's very cool to see how much has been done since my original post. I really don't see any reason at all for removing the article,quite the contrary I think it should be expanded further, and I am certainly not against classicism either!

InspecdahBall (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— InspecdahBall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My examination of the sources (after removing a résumé and a "ref" to this AfD nomination) in which I quote any mention of class or economic: Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quilter: replicates systemic biases of Internet culture: Anglophone, class privilege, "Libertarian" politics, WM single mention of class on a powerpoint slide
Shlomit: Furthermore, Fraser raises an important claim that the suspension of gender, ethnic and class differences work in favor of the strong and does not promote the weak (Fraser, 1992) single mention of class, as part of background about a study on gender bias
HuffPost: would also like to see the Wikimedia Foundation conduct more research on how gender, race, and other factors 'dictate the sociopolitical reality of Wikipedia edits'
Wikipedia survey that is just data
Classism on Class Action: no mention of Wikipedia
Cassano: about race and Wikipedia
Classism on IResearchNet: no mention of Wikipedia
Hargittai: Of particular relevance to the case of the Wikipedia gender gap, research on differentiated Internet experiences and skills has shown that socioeconomic inequalities and demographic differences tend to translate into differentiated patterns of Internet use across cultural, civic, and relational spheres of activity. We have every reason to believe that this might also be the case with Wikipedia and the gender gap. (they then surveyed college students, and found white + male the only background characteristics that exhibit statistically significant relationships, also None of the other variables in the models--including mesaures of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, availability, Internet experience, and confidence in editing Wikipedia--are significant.)
Executive summary of Wikipedia survey, no mention of "class" or "econom"
Ferguson: no mention of Wikipedia
Quilter: another slideshow, same slide as before
Eltecolote: Some of the obstacles that prevent Latinos from being Wikipedians are the same hurdles that confront other people of color. Less education, less access to Internet, less computer skills and also having a lesser presence in the high-tech sector can all prevent Latinos from being Wikipedians.
Wired: race and gender
Manstead: no mention of Wikipedia
SPLC: is about fringe and racism
Nguyen: is about a study of Wikipedia users to examine adherence to social norms; nothing about class or systemic bias
Lam: gender
Macaulay: no mention of Wikipedia
Herring: gender
NASPA: no mention of Wikipedia
GRE vocabulary: list of GRE words
LSE Research: gender
NYTimes: gender
MIT Technology Review: gender

I'll pick up a few of those and put them in context, I might do more later:

Quilter: replicates systemic biases of Internet culture: Anglophone, class privilege, "Libertarian" politics, WM single mention of class on a powerpoint slide

(I see two mentions one refering to the userbase and another refering to it generally?)

HuffPost: would also like to see the Wikimedia Foundation conduct more research on how gender, race, and other factors 'dictate the sociopolitical reality of Wikipedia edits'
Wikipedia survey Demography data of Wikipedias skewed userbase.
Classism on Class Action: It just explains the concept of Classism, I'll go ahead and remove this one.
Cassano: about race and Wikipedia and digital divide.
Classism on IResearchNet: Mentions digital divide.
Executive summary of Wikipedia survey: Mentions what we already know about the group of people that mainly edit wikipedia, (this by negation is very well reason enough to have the article.)
Ferguson: This one seems to be about life expectancy, if you die for example 18 years before a more well of counterpart, that obviously limits your time to edit wikipedia.
Eltecolote: Some of the obstacles that prevent Latinos from being Wikipedians are the same hurdles that confront other people of color. Less education, less access to Internet, less computer skills and also having a lesser presence in the high-tech sector can all prevent Latinos from being Wikipedians.
Wired: race and gender
Manstead: I get that it doesn't say Wikipedia, but it literally applies everywhere.
Nguyen: If one reads what it's cited for it becomes another issue.

I think a mistake here is to assume that the arguments relating to platforms cultural logic and gender and race isn't relevant in an intersectional perspective, which isn't exactly fringe. As the article stands, that concept isn't exactly explained for the users however. And that's a tad ironic... I'm even more on my original perspective now that more sources have been added.

Keep

InspecdahBall (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this, I think it should stay, I can certainly understand why there has been some quibble regarding the sources, but I think my recent edit fixed that pretty well. As it looked in the beginning I could have understood if it was to go to the sandbox but now it's another story. But one could certainly zero in more regarding the quotes, as I'm looking at it now I see that it could be summarized more heavily. That might have been a mistake at my part, I might have to look into that. EgoBenedict (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EgoBenedict (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— EgoBenedict (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing admin; after the first delete votes, the AfD has been canvassed externally here, the article has been refbombed (with e.g. 6 refs for the section "Lack of ontological reflection regarding contemporary mental health issues" but only one, already discussed above, referencing Wikipedia), we have the article creator voting twice plus an IP and a SPA joining them... Fram (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect this will end with delete and possibly redirect (although it's unclear which target, since criticism of Wikipedia doesn't mention class). The issue is lack of sources specifically about social class bias as on Wikipedia rather than a side discussion of class while focusing on gender, race, etc. The other issue is there seems to be some WP:OR and tangential material added. @EgoBenedict and InspecdahBall: the thing that will persuade people is a list of those sources specifically about this subject (which is not at all the same as the list of sources in the article currently). Strip away sources about other aspects of Wikipedia that mention class and sources about class that have nothing to do with Wikipedia -- what's left? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EgoBenedict (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC) EgoBenedict speaking: The article has (not very surprisingly) also been linked from other sources at this point.[reply]

https://boards. 4chan.org /pol/thread/ 258726557/help- clense-wikipedia-with-your-spare-time

https://www.google.de/search?q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_bias_on_Wikipedia&ei=I_fLXsnLBczi6QT_m6dI&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiJ6YyevM_pAhVMcZoKHf_NCQkQ8NMDegQICxA7&cshid=1590425401889931&biw=1745&bih=813

Note to closing admin

Please consider the entirety of the references instead of refering to this simplified notes like this one, for example.

Fram (talk) Why do you think that my post constitutes "refbombing" ? 6 sources isn't much for a section.

I've just tried to add content and clean up the page and make verification more transparent, and from what I can find SPA means single purpose account which my account isn't. The thing is that I only tend to edit content which I care about, which to be honest isn't much anymore these days. I stand by my previous statement, and would like to hear opinions on what has to be improved from the people who think this should be deleted. Because ources regarding the issue exist even if they aren't as extensive as they should be. The sources regarding gender and race are relevant due to intersectionality as well as similair issues affecting all three groups, which overlaps very frequently. Have a great day. EgoBenedict (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gumlau (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR article. I have added Template:Not a ballot as well. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to state that I did not intend to vote twice, I merely stated that I once again took the same stance, which becomes apparent if you check what I wrote. Does anyone know if I should remove it? Thanks. InspecdahBall (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites

Why not start here?

Lund, Arwid (25 April 2017). Wikipedia, work and capitalism A realm of freedom?. Lund. p. 60-61,111-112 180,150-153,158-159, 234,282,299-300,323,etc. ISBN 978-3-319-50689-0.

Also I just want to note that the starting point of the conversation seems inherently biased in the first place, instead of talking about how Wikipedia obviously mirrors society, and therefore takes up a really good amount of what's in society.

We seem to talk about this is a manner of which it seems to be a implicit premise that wikipedia wouldn't take up these biases, which is very, very unlikely, and then we shift the burden of proof to the people who want to acknowledge the fact that there has been bias, and that there will probably be more bias because humans aren't machines. (see sources in the article)

But if one could show how Wikipedia doesn't mirror the rest of society and have at least a small class bias, then we could throw this page out instantly due to the premise being falsified. So as this stands now, the page could be seen as a good(but with room for improvement) cogent argument which does a decent job of falsifying the thesis that Wikipedia wouldn't take up class bias. (This is not even mentioning what's been written about the user-base, and empirical examples of "best for business ontology", etc.)

This could be laid up as a simple argument by elimination: 1:Wikipedia either is or isn't biased on the question on social class. 2:Wikipedia is not unbiased on the question on social class (for all reasons mentioned in the literature, and the sheer unlikeliness) Therefore: It's impossible to rule out that Wikipedia has a bias regarding social class.

You can even construct your own little cogent argument relating to the article. E.g as a conjunction: 1:Wikipedia uses secondary sources for a enormous part of its content. 2:Secondary sources contain class bias. (See for example Kendall, Diana. Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America.) Therefore:

Wikipedia voluntarily or not hosts class biased content.

Or you can present the same thing in another way by affirming the antecdent: 1:If Wikipedia hosts class biased content, they use at least some sources which contain class bias. 2:Wikipedia uses mostly secondary sources.

Therefore: At least some secondary sources must contain class bias (See for example Kendall, Diana. Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America.)

Or why not:

1:If Wikipedia exists Wikipedia is an entity in society. 2:You are reading wikipedia right now, and therefore have good reasons to believe that it is an entity in society. 3:Scholars have frequently demonstrated the existence of class society and human beings tendency to bias.

Therefore:If Wikipedia exists Wikipedia is subject to being a part of a class society.

InspecdahBall (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC) InspecdahBall (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not the place to discuss or decide whether there is social class bias on Wikipedia. There are typo's galore in Wikipedia, but "Typo's in Wikipedia" would not be a good subject for a Wikipedia article. Please drop the irrelevant walls of text and stick to the actual discussion instead. Fram (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Primefac (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Jaiswal (filmmaker)[edit]

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

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

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

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

paid for spam about a non notable filmmaker. Producing 2 episodes of a web series (not a tv series) that is questionably notable doesn't equate to independent notability and I can find no better coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block the creator for editing against the ToU. serial ^# 15:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked them a few months ago and quarantined this page. I also blocked the account that reverted the quarantine for the first time back in March. The quarantine was reverted for a second time (by someone who I just blocked) and now the page is here. Delete and salt, because this UPE farm is persistent. MER-C 17:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He produced 2 season of television series imdb is incomplete but series is huge famous in India which was hosted by Prakash Jha. Please help this page to get required resources from news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandbelle (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC) sock strike Praxidicae (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP's rationale. Waggie (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lots of reference link available for pankaj jaiswal and nothing promoted is written over his page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj4747 (talk • contribs) — Raj4747 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep He did a famous show with Prakash Jha and he is one of the youngest film producer with few upcoming projects for OTT platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecrusaiders (talk • contribs) 07:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC) — Icecrusaiders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep why filmmaker page should not be there on wikipedia. lots of projects done by pankaj jaiswal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishbansal21 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC) — Ashishbansal21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Non-notable film producer fails WP:BIO. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 07:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saare jahan se acha tv show and amma ki boli film is notable work of pankaj jaiswal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipunmathur1 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC) — Nipunmathur1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Checkuser note: The above single-purpose accounts are technically Unrelated to one another, consider them to have been WP:CANVASSED. ST47 (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of indepth coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 18:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:42 pretty obviously, short of anyone miraculously producing a whole list of sources newly. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, too few WP:RS, most of the sources are PR. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. BD2412 T 05:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siddiqui Subhani (Indian Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

paid for spam, move warred to mainspace about a non notable individual with no meaningful coverage. See also Siddiqui Subhani. Praxidicae (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spammoid; block creator for edit-warring. serial ^# 15:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like spam at first glance, and this suspicion is strengthened the more one delves into the topic. The article subject has accrued some coverage, but said coverage is poor quality. Take this source cited by the article; at first glance it may imply the subject has accured coverage, but on close inspection the source is revealed to be a five-sentence incoherent puff piece - the same can be said for this source. None of the sources cited imply the article subject has a claim to encyclopedic significance, nor is there any indication the subject is more than a run-of-the-WP:MILL businessperson/marketer. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed, paid-for spam. MER-C 17:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: Looking at the undisambiguated page, this has been deleted 4 times since 2016. Three times for A7, once for G11. 173.85.194.197 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above rationale. Waggie (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - page has been deleted numerous times as per IP 2 posts above Spiderone 13:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and Indefinite block creation — The article is Run of the mill as SamHolt6 noted, and because it is continuously recreated, its creation should be blocked indefinite. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 06:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to note that - given this AfD was filed and has seen some participation - the article should not be speedied. In my opinion it is better to have a lasting discussion resulting a concrete consensus to delete the topic that just continually speedy deleting the article. A deletion here also opens this article to being deleted via a G4 speedy should it be recreated in the future. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt, along with Siddiqui Subhani. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --TheImaCow (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I agree with the suggestion to add salt: the subject fails ANYBIO by spades. ——Serial^# 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:HEY and notability claims provided. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Frederick Windham[edit]

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

The guy had a large inheritance, so his uncle tried to disposses him of it after he married a woman sometimes described as a "courtesan". The very little coverage that exists focuses more on his wife, and what exists seems mainly to exist because he was rich enough to get a professionally made portrait of him and his wife. If anything the coverage around his trial falls under the rubric of Wikipedia not being a newspaper. This might be the oldest invocation of that policy, but the coverage still all basically constitutes routine news coverage John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case was described in The British Journal of Psychiatry as "a significant event in psychiatric history"... Also the subject of multiple works. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Obviously notable thanks to Philafrenzy's additions. The nominator's characterization of news coverage of extraordinary events as "routine" is puzzling. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was notable enough before Philafrenzy expanded it, but there can be no doubt now that it passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has improved considerably. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current version demonstrates notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5/G11 Cabayi (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Master Music Publications[edit]

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

does not meet WP:NOTABLE. Company founded in 2018, which organized a piano festival in Watford in 2019. Er - that's it. Article is basically promotional for the company and its clients: sources are mainly its own site and those of its clients (people who they publish or promote) and collaborators. 'Independent' sources are trivial (e.g. reprints of press releases in local free newspapers). Smerus (talk) 12:01, 19 May 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 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies--Smerus (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MMP is a sheet music publishing company, in the same way many others are that appear on Wikipedia. They publish music for notable people that have established pages on here. I don’t see why they are being singled out. They organised another piano festival, but I haven’t had the time to write up about it (was hoping someone else would). If you like I can work on it... Cabin2015 (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It is clear that there is no consensus for deletion. All seem to agree that the articles covering this topic need to be reorganized instead. There are many proposals, but not yet clear consensus as to how to proceed. This discussion can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 20:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music publisher (sheet music)[edit]

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

This article isn't likely to grow beyond a stub and should be merged to Music publisher (popular music) which should in turn be renamed Music publisher. The term "popular music" is ambiguous. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 11:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose deletion and/or merge. There is no reason to suppose that "this article isn't likely to grow beyond a stub" - there are e.g. articles on music publishing in Oxford Music Online and other dictionaries and very many books on the general topic, articles in JSTOR etc. The article should grow beyond a stub, as there is a need on WP for a history of music publishing before the popular era. Merging it with Music publisher (popular music) won't do: the latter is (imo) a poor, unsourced article entirely dedicated to popular music. (The statement that 'the term popular music is ambiguous' is a bit of personal WP:IDONTLIKE by the proposer - there is a sourced artice on the topic in Wikipedia, Popular music - which the proposer can edit if they are usatidifed with it - in any case it has nothing to do with the the viability of this article).--Smerus (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there isn't any WP:IDONTLIKE to this. Popular Music is interchangeably used to describe pop music as the genre of music but also as more modern music. This is ambiguous to readers. There is merit beyond the stub argument (which is a valid argument by the way) such as the synergy between the two different types of publishing and ultimately it is a similar thing. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The way this article is written looks like a prose version of a category. I think this article should be merged with Music publisher (popular music) and the whole renamed as Music publishing and then take it from there. The definition of Sheet music on Wikipedia is wrong: it really means "published music" - and I have promised on that article's talk page that I would move it if no one had any objections. But before I do that I have to create an article that is really about sheet music which I have not yet done. - kosboot (talk)
Keep – "This article isn't likely to grow beyond a stub" is a) an unfounded assumption; b) not a valid reason to delete. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment: see my comment above. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both Music publisher (sheet music) and Music publisher (popular music) to Music publisher (and make that a content page, instead of the current DAB format). The distinction is somewhat absurd, and POV. Music publishers of sheet music are not music publishers of "un"popular music; music publishers of popular music do publish "sheet music". E.g. Dover Publications is a music publisher providing "popular" classics... in sheet music format. No way to say whether they are primarily a Music publisher (sheet music) or a Music publisher (popular music) – unless when making a POV judgement. Even the most uptight houses in the music publishing industry probably all started by publishing... the popular music of their day. Does anyone think that Anton Diabelli could have been a successful music publisher ... if he had selected music that was "unpopular" in his day for his Vaterländischer Künstlerverein project? Both current articles, Music publisher (sheet music) and Music publisher (popular music), have issues – trying to resolve these on the separate pages seems near impossible, but when they are both merged to Music publisher, such clean-up would likely become considerably less complex. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment, thanks Francis Schonken, this has summed up my point exactly. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is that it set off on the wrong foot, that is as an AfD. "D" means "deletion" and "deletion" means loss – while essentially what is proposed in the OP is a "merge". There are better procedures to propose a merge, see WP:MERGE, e.g. by use of {{merge}} type of templates. When talking "deletion", everyone is in state of alert, and truly, I don't think the current content of the Music publisher (sheet music) should all be permanently removed from the encyclopedia. As an AfD, this should be a WP:SNOW keep. Another agreeable solution would be these steps:
  1. Move Music publisher (sheet music) → List of music publishers (this would save its edit history)
  2. Move Music publisher (popular music) → Music publisher (deleting current insignificant edit history of the latter)
  3. Sort content of both pages: remove content for which no reliable source seems apparent; retain a short introduction and the list of publishers in List of music publishers; merge the remainder of its verifiable content to Music publisher; restructure that page so that it covers the entire "music publisher" concept; make sure that both pages contain a prominent link to the other page.
  4. Sort redirects: not sure which of the two (or both) of the Music publisher (sheet music) and Music publisher (popular music) redirects should be kept at this point, but if kept they should both redirect to the Music publisher article.
... but again, to set such process in motion, AfD is, among several possibilities, including also a simple WP:SOFIXIT, probably the very worst first step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Another scheme, that might work even better than what I proposed above:
  1. Keep Music publisher (sheet music), and smarten that page up (references etc.)
  2. Move Music publisher (popular music) → Music publisher (recordings)
  3. Make Music publisher (popular music) redirect to Music publisher, and make that page into a content page, or at least a WP:SIA
What made me think about this was Hänssler, which has two divisions:
- Hänssler-Verlag, which is a Music publisher (sheet music)
- Hänssler Classic, which is not a Music publisher (sheet music), nor a Music publisher (popular music), but quite clearly a Music publisher (recordings)
As for the Hänssler article itself: its opening sentence currently contains the expression "music publishing house" – not linked to anything, that is, neither to Music publisher (sheet music), nor to Music publisher (popular music). It should be linked to Music publisher, and that's why that page should under no circumstance remain a disambiguation page (while linking to that page would then prompt a bot to leave a message on a user page that the term should be linked elsewhere). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Other proposal, partly implemented per WP:BOLD (with a whiff of WP:IAR): I merged the content of both Music publisher (sheet music) and Music publisher (popular music) to Music publisher. The second is already turned into a redirect to that last page. While this is an AfD, preventing to empty the Music publisher (sheet music) page, I just added a {{soft redirect}} between the AfD tag and the rest of the content of that page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (i.e. keep), per the reasons given by Smerus. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

I mostly agree with User:Francis Schonken, although I would have moved the article to Music publishing to focus on the industry and process rather than the agents involved, and also to form a logical succession to the article History of music publishing. In case you are not aware of it, Grove has probably the best article that speaks about music publishing, listed under Printing and publishing of music. - kosboot (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't do that without admin powers... posted a CSD tag — we'll see where that takes us. If unsuccessful, →WP:RM (probably best after the dust of this AfD settles). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the speedy was declined – suggesting to await closure of this AfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support merging all three exisiting articles previously mentioned - Music publisher (sheet music), Music publisher (popular music) and Music publisher, into History of music publishing or Music publishing (or splitting them as appopriate between these two articles if there is consensus to maintain them both).--Smerus (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyhow, would not support to have a History of music publishing article without having a Music publishing article... (if that is what you meant). The other way around may be possible, but seeing the current content of History of music publishing (which BTW is far from complete), it would be a bit too much to try cram all of that in a Music publishing article, together with the content now at Music publisher.
Re. Music publishing vs. Music publisher: that is, afaics, essentially an article titling issue – we can't have both (which would be a WP:CONTENT FORK) – and both would have essentially the same content: we can have one of these two, the other redirecting. Unless the Music publishing version of the name for that content gets enough support in this AfD (so that the AfD closer would mention that preference in their closing report), the thing will need to be taken up after closure of the AfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to have two articles History of music publishing and Music publishing, as far as I can see, if that is what others want - I am not against it.--Smerus (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposals above for a Music Publishing article and History of Music Publishing article.→ Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 17:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music publisher or Music publishing: Per Francis Schonken. Best to discuss the contents in any of the articles. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep: Article’s title, if translated to French and put in Google, gives ample notability. I forgot to search in Français. (non-admin closure) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Head of the Minister of Defence's military cabinet[edit]

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

~~Couldn’t find any sources to support the article. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Cate[edit]

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

non notable musician, no meaningful reliable coverage. a search reveals the usual pr spam from unreliable black hat SEO sites posing as news outlets and the same for those in teh article. Praxidicae (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

notable sources found are Hip Hop Weekly, AllMusic, The Deli Magazine, Broadcast Music, Inc.. Although Hip Hop Weekly is the only with an article written, it provides notable coverage. Sweetteaplz (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon another look through the musician's sources, The Hype Magazine is also a notable source used to verify facts on Wikipedia as well. Sweetteaplz (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't even a source, it's jsut a listing. Absolutely useless for notability. And I have doubts to whether Deli Mag is useful for notability since it appears to be a small time blog. Hype is pay for publishing and should be blacklisted, this is PR nonsense, and so is the rest. There is no actual coverage of this person. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. However, Hip Hop Weekly has it's own Wikipedia article, I'm not sure I understand how it can be nonsense unless it's an opinion? Also forgive my ignorance, do sources that have verified social media accounts like Twitter and Facebook not count as reliable? Sweetteaplz (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Hip Hop Weekly clearly published puffery from her PR team. Social media is worthless, being verified means nothing and is't coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Lots of sources covered her Self Love EP: hiphopweekly.com aboutinsider.com dailymusicroll.com and muziquemagazine.com was done around the same time. The reviews are standard length and don't really reveal much biographic information, but they are sufficient to barely push past WP:GNG. The article needs to be cleaned-up to only what is sourced though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, aboutinsider, dailymuscroll and muziquemag are all black hat SEO sites, they are pay for publication and in particular aboutinsider is completely fake. Take a peek at their editorial staff, who consist of an NHL player and several models under fake names. Take a peek at all the other fake sites they operate. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, Walter Görlitz the supposed author of the dailymusicroll piece is also fake, it's a stock photo, see here. Praxidicae (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and see this https://www.fiv-err.com/muziquemag/publish-your-article-on-google-news-approved-magazine-site (remove the -) for muziquemag, these are all garbage sources which is why I pointed it out in my nom. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the sources used in the actual article for the musician are sufficient? Not including any sources that aren’t there I.e. the sites listed when you search the musician. Besides Hip Hop Weekly and the Hype Magazine, the sources named in the discussion aren’t listed. Sweetteaplz (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I pointed out all the sources Walter Gorlitz mentioned are unacceptable and are now blacklisted aside from HHW, which still isn't significant coverage. None of the sources in the article are acceptable either. Praxidicae (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any listed at RSN so they may be part of a larger group, they are not unacceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be listed at RSN as they're blatantly fake sources. Which is why they are now blacklisted. Are you seriously suggesting after what I've shown you, Walter Görlitz that aboutinsider, muziquemagazine or dailymusicroll - which created false profiles of fake people as journalists, are reliable sources? Literally the *only* way to have items published on that site, which is done under a false name and false credentials is to pay them and even if it weren't, you cannot seriously be suggesting that publishing content under false identities is acceptable. Praxidicae (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see your WP:BLUDGEON here. I just edited the page and saved it. Since the edit touched every reference, it would have triggered the blacklist bot, or any automated process. It's not on on Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Which blacklist are you referring to? Link please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources; with the emphasis here being on the “reliable sources” Celestina007 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above, with emphasis on the "reliable sources" part indeed. Frankly, any editor at AfD who employs "But it has a Wikipedia article!" or "they may be part of a larger group" as definitions for "reliable source" (a definition which, after all, encompasses the National Enquirer, the Weekly World News, Stormfront, InfoWars and other similar bastions of fact checking and integrity) needs a good, hard review of WP:RS. Ravenswing 20:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO, only real coverage is from pay-for-press sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Paste (magazine) and Hip Hop Weekly coverage aren't reliable needed for the article? It may be weak, so there are sources for affiliations with AllMusic, The Deli Magazine, Broadcast Music, Inc. which can be used to back up information. Sources don't actually include aboutinsider, muziquemagazine or dailymusicroll in the actual article for Baby Cate. They may be fake sources, not confirmed for each site, they just show up in Google News when you look up the musician. Sweetteaplz (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE - Primefac (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the Paste entry is that it's not, it's a Noisetrade entry: no more a RS than an iTunes Store, Amazon, Spotify, etc. entry. It's not a review on Paste, nor is it an article about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Another point for The Hype Magazine, it may be pay for promo, but there isn't any proof the artist's team actually did. Also, The Hype Magazine is used as a source for many articles on this site, here's an example if you look at reference #14 for :Lil Mosey In no way not comparing the amount of coverage of the two, just the one source used for both. Plus Hip Hop Weekly can provide coverage. Sweetteaplz (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Hype, like the others is that they don't identify their editorial staff and what is paid from their actual content. More importantly it's a blog that calls itself a magazine - just do a search of "hype magazine" and Fiverr. I mean seriously, just look at their header, it's nonsense "the world's #1 digital magazine in stores now!"...not to mention the only way to get your music or review on there is to go here and pay either $300 or $100 or via SEO hires or this: We do request a small fee to pay our writers to review your product. Simply all but one source here and in the article (aside from the itunes and listing) are paid for spam. Praxidicae (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my previous statement, the fact is The Hype Magazine is still being used on Wikipedia as a source for other articles. Sweetteaplz (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it isn't blacklisted yet isn't relevant. The fact that a crappy source is used in another article isn't relevant, it just means it needs cleanup. Praxidicae (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevancy is if it can be used for another musician's article, it should able to be used for her's, that's all. Sweetteaplz (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nonsensical argument. If a non-qualifying source is being used to bolster the notability of the subject in another article, then there had better be multiple other qualifying sources in that article. My emphasis is intentional: there is a large difference between an article simply including a citation, and a citation as one of the foundations of the article's notability. If the latter, the proper answer is not "Oh, well, the source is valid then." It's that the notability of the other subject is questionable as well.

Beyond that, when you claim above that a source uses pay-for-promo doesn't mean that the subject's team has done so: that's entirely irrelevant. The point under discussion isn't whether the artist or her personal entourage is involved in advertising hype. It's whether a source that exists on such payments is reliable. By Wikipedia rules, it most certainly is not. Your time would be better expended here by finding solid, reliable qualifying sources which bolster your article's notability, especially since curiously enough, fighting this AfD seems to be your sole activity on Wikipedia. Would you care to disclose any WP:COI issues? Ravenswing 07:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I already said in my previous argument, there is a WP:reliable source with Hip Hop Weekly used as well. Maybe you could help me understand, without using the pay-for-promo point since it's irrelevant, how exactly is The Hype Magazine not WP:reliable? Isn't it independent of the subject too? If not, then why is it still being used as a source for other articles? And I didn't claim anyone used pay for promo. As for WP:COI I literally just made this account two days ago, there wouldn't be a lot under my activity. If you could point out difference between an article simply including a citation, and a citation as one of the foundations of the article's notability and which rule that applies to on here? I understand what your saying but is that an official guideline? Sweetteaplz (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidae already answered your question about the Hype Magazine above. As far as what goes into a reliable source generally, if you're citing WP:RS -- which you just did -- then you ought to be familiar with its content (and as it says in a large honking block at the top of the page, it is indeed an official guideline). A source, to be considered "reliable," must be independent AND published AND have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Now: why is the Hype Magazine being used as a source in other articles? For the same reason as here -- to try to find some source, any source, to make a new article look good, and hope people don't examine them too closely.

As far as the difference between how citations are used, that's simple. A primary, non-independent source can be used for information about the subject. For instance, a university's website is a valid source for biographical details about a coach it employs -- birthdate, birthplace, prior positions and the like; it's unlikely to be inaccurate about such things. But that website can't be used to support the subject's notability, which is an entirely different thing. Ravenswing 09:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. However, Wikipedia claims reliability of sources fall on a spectrum and editors use their judgement to determine. WP:REPUTABLE In which way can you determine the validation for reputation for fact-checking and accuracy for The Hype Magazine? Many articles actually use The Hype Magazine as a reliable source I've also found and it's clearly :known. Plus Hip Hop Weekly qualifies as reliable, doesn't that satisfy WP:GNG? Along with other sources and a general search of the subject? Sweetteaplz (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One classic way of gauging the reliability of a source is simple: how many reliable sources mention or cite it? Find us (say) an article in Rolling Stone stating that The Hype Magazine is reliable. And that being said, I'll repeat what I said above: that other articles use a suspect source does not make the source reliable; it makes those articles suspect. Ravenswing 06:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fail WP:MUSICBIO because of relevant sources used. Sweetteaplz (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Determining what the discussion rules is the job of the closing admin, not of us. Ravenswing 07:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, thank you. Sweetteaplz (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO VViking_TalkEdits 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Niue High School. Fenix down (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niue High School Oval[edit]

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

No references were found on Google. (The lone source already in the article is archived) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A redirect would be an alternative. But I still don’t believe that the subject is notable enough on its own. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, and nowhere worthwhile to redirect it to. Giant Snowman 19:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Niue High School would be a suitable redirect target. Since the stadium is used for sports matches, not just those of the school, it is a conceivable search term. Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Niue High School; there's no harm in doing so. Schwede 66 01:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Niue High School possible search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into and redirect to Niue High School. Nurg (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OE Classic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable product, no major reviews, no reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a product occupying a niche, supported by forum and blog posts. TLS 1.0 deprecation may have brought a byproduct of more attention for OE Classic but I am not seeing the level and depth of coverage which would be needed to set aside the 2013 AfD consensus and demonstrate that it has become notable. AllyD (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lost In The Spec[edit]

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

non notable play by an apparent non-notable student (?) Praxidicae (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every play that has ever bee produced is notable. That is the test for notability that would have to be answered yes for this to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced entirely by social media, and no reliable source shows up on search. BiologicalMe (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Lethbridge[edit]

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

Unsourced apart from one refence to a faculty page. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG Idolwyld (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. All I can find are three reviews of only one of his books, two from somewhat fringy looking sources. I don't think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR, but even one properly published review of one of his other books might be enough to make me tilt the other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no sign of WP:NPROF. WP:NAUTHOR is plausible, but the reviews that we've found at this time don't support it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Chromatica Ball[edit]

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

This page should be merged into the album page as it is not yet notable. Its also WP:CRYSTAL and with COVID-19 pandemic there is a lot of speculation and its highly likely that the tour will be postponed or cancelled. Per WP:NTOURS, articles that don't go beyond the existence of the tour shouldn't exist. The information here could be succinctly summarised at the Chromatica album page. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 09:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons above. Merge into Chromatica. --Sricsi (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; tried establishing that in March 2020, and was stopped. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Prematurely created, shouldn't exist even without Corona tbh.--N Ø 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Speedy Delete. Article was Speedy Deleted under A7 (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olatunde Brain[edit]

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

No evidence of notability could be found. The award nomination doesn't seem to have gotten any attention in reliable, independent sources. Searching for Tunde Brain gives more results than Olatunde Brain, but they are still not helpful, with many versions of Amazon and Goodreads and the like. The remainder are social media results, but even these are sparse[18]. Fram (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Autobiographical article in which subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & falls short of WP:POET also. Celestina007 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable author who fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. A Google search of the subject doesn't show any coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witchlord[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. One review when it was new, and nothing since. Even among obscure 1980s board games, this one must be near the bottom of the list, and doesn't even generate attention at fora or fan blogs. A meagre 12 Google hits... Since the comlpany behind it doesn't have an article either, there is no logical redirect target, so delete it is. Fram (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Outside of general database entries like BGG that only reprint official descriptions from the publisher, I am finding no other coverage outside of the "capsule review" already included as a reference. And, the single source is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. As neither the publisher nor creator appear to be notable themselves, there is no valid targets for redirects or mergers. Rorshacma (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The review on BGG amuses me greatly. And as much as I think we should keep things like this here, it clearly doesn't meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Druwi[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Other than the etymology section, the entire article is based on the movement's own website. The article on Lithuanian Wikipedia has one reliable source, Religijų įvairovė Lietuvoje: portretai, kasdienybė ir šventės, with one paragraph about "Kuronas", which I assume is related to the Kurono Academy mentioned here. It could be a good source for the main Baltic neopaganism article, but isn't enough to support a separate article. I've searched for other sources but couldn't find any. Ffranc (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shak Adams[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and FOOTY. Once again, just signing with pro club does not make a player notable. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability for football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University Alliance in Talent Education Development[edit]

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

This article relies entirely on non-independent sources. A search in English turns up nothing useful, and a search in Chinese indicates that the related page on zh.wiki was deleted several months ago. There is nothing to support any kind of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-01 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Dubai Creek[edit]

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

Not notable; all references to the hotel online and in the article are marketing-related Wikieditor600 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. ~ HAL 333 19:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Mccapra (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We really need more in-depth arguments than WP:NOTNOTABLE, only the nominator's argument is policy-based.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok there’s no real claim of notability except for a 2014 TripAdvisor Award. Otherwise it’s one of many hotels in Dubai and one of many Hiltons in the world. It has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. In addition WP:CHAIN may apply. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. This could be relisted, but it is doubtful a consensus would be reached thereby when it has not in the already-extended time for this discussion. Rationales for keeping the article are not the strongest, but not entirely invalid. Pursuant to Piotrus' comment about the possibility of having an article about "fungus-based protein industry", a better course to pursue might be developing such an article and seeking to merge this there. BD2412 T 04:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature's Fynd[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar outside what the creator added. I want to note that the creator is not some COI SPI but an established and experienced editor I respect, see also his explanation of his connection to the topic at Talk: Nature's_Fynd. Nonetheless, most of the sources cited here don't discuss the company in-depth or at all (!). Three sources that name it in the headline are all ONEVENT about the usual start-up spamnews "company secures funding!"; [19] is a blog by a Forbes Contributor (not an article by a Forbes journalist, don't confuse F-contributors with F-journalists), and is half-WP:INTERVIEW, sharing scope and other similarities with niche outlets [20]/[21] (btw, that last outlet is so copyright paranoid it disables copying of even a single word from its article...wow). Anyway, I have serious concerns this company is not notable. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page creator here. Is there a reason why all the federal grant awards are being tossed out as if they don't count?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRIMARY, plus they are just documents which are discussed in other sources. We generally don't rely on primary documentation when it comes to discussing notability of a topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The grant web pages are unacceptable PRIMARYs for subjects such as the Federal Agency, Federal SBIRs, or an individual grant award. However, Federal Agency grant awards are WP:RS regarding the work of the winning companies in the sense that they are acceptable PRIMARYs for the subject matter of the merit of the companies (to simply cite the fact that they won certain magnitude awards for certain periods), IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the United Press International publicity weeks after the March 24 Series B publicity. P.S. I concede the Wired article dated April 1, seems to have been published before the March 24 rebranding and without regard to the Series B funding publicity, but that article gave great flavor on the variety of approaches being used by the three leading fungus-based protein companies.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you link the specific sources you would like us to review? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - this UPI source is a RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the sources. I can't access the full text of this, but it seems to be based on a WP:INTERVIEW about "company releases/researches new product". I'd judge it good for expansions but not helpful in demonstrating notability of the company, since it is more about the product and not the company (WP:NOTINHERITED). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - this Wired source is a RS on the subject of fungus-based protein suppliers. Given the short list that they produce, it is well sourced content regarding distinguishing this subject from other companies in the field.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Errr, I can't find to CTRL+F the company's name anywhere in that article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - this Chicago Tribune source is far more than a rehashing of a One Event press release. It is a RS in regards to analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts. The problem with WP:ONEEVENT, is it is generally applied to bio articles. Furthermore, this one event coverage (this articles and several others) exhibits extensive editorial judgement and analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Half of it is quoted interview. The other is better, but again I have concerns if this is in-depth about a company or is it about its product? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - this is a source for the origins of the company.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - company history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is it? It again fails to mention the company's name ("Nature's Fynd"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
      - Piotrus (note there are two articles above from before the company changed its name. Did you see both? If you aren't aware of the name change, maybe you didn't even read the article you are suppose to be reviewing. It is mentioned in the LEAD and the main body. I will make it more prominent in the body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I still can't find th mention of Sustainable Bioproducts in the Biodesel source, as for the wired, yes, they are mentioned in a two-sentence paragraph. That's clearly not in-depth coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You are complaining that my research is too good. I have found the company history going back to 2009. The company was formed in late 2012, but the source you are pointing to is early 2012. Of course it does not mention a company that had not been formed yet. Maybe if I hadn't included the first three sentences in that section about the company's history from before it was formed, it wouldn't have confused you so much. Would it be helpful to delete the first three sentences of that section?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems to pass WP:GNG or at least is a good example of a WP:BASIC (if BASIC can be applied to non bio articles). There is a lot of encyclopedic content from places that are WP:RS (Wired, UPI, Several federal agencies) on top of the Series B publicity which is actually surprisingly detailed with editorial contributions rather than rehashings of a press release.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing the examples of best sources, but I am sorry, I still don't think this company merits a stand-alone article. What I think would be correct would be writing an article about "fungus-based protein industry" or such, where this company could be mentioned. That would be a neutral and informative way to dealing with this topic (and many like it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The existence of sources like [22] [23] and [24] convinces me that this passes WP:NCORP. It is silly and plain incorrect to apply WP:ONEEVENT to companies, that policy is clearly for people. SD0001 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The organization got some coverage but most of them are just fundraising news. - Ivan hersee (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies and Appearances (Ai Là Triệu Phú/WWTBAM Vietnam)[edit]

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

I am finding this article not notable as per WP:N guidelines. Also it seems like WP:PROMOTIONAL and has no WP:RS ~Amkgp ✉ 03:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 03:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 03:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 03:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Flori4nK, Scope creep, North8000, GSS, GPL93, Fitindia, Tagishsimon, and AlejandroLeloirRey: Request, help and invite for an independent review. Thank you. ~Amkgp ✉ 03:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Funny things that happened on the Vietnam version of Who wants to be a millionaire tv programme. Its a very popular show and the youtube video has 13 million views. No effective referencing. Draftify as its first article, to see if it goes anywhere. scope_creep^Talk 08:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to be a direct copy from the show's Fandom wiki.^{[25](Comparison)} - Flori4nKT A L K 11:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No suitable sources to establish wp:notability of this topic, in fact no sources at all. The article doesn't even seem to have a distinct topic or any explanation of exactly what the topic is. Also is not written as an article.....seems like a rambling blog post. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned already, non-notable, no context (as in, I don't even understand what it's about), no citations, etc. and also a copy of an earlier Fandom.com article. I wouldn't even draftily it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Oleinyk[edit]

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

Whilst the winner of a national beauty pageant (non-notable competition - see WP:1EVENT), did not place in the international pageant. Has no other significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and yet another article on a non-notable beauty queen. Beauty queens may be the group we have deleted the highest percentage of articles we once had on, and the ones who have the most articles in need of deletions. We clealry delete more articles on businessmen, but there are also more notable businessmen so it is not as large an overall percentage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonila Guz[edit]

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

Whilst the winner of a national beauty pageant (non-notable competition - see WP:1EVENT), did not place in the international pageant. Has no other significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Tkach[edit]

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

Whilst the winner of a national beauty pageant (non-notable competition - see WP:1EVENT), did not place in the international pageant. Has no other significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Youngblood[edit]

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

Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. If this is deleted, please also delete the redirect Cameron Lavi-Jones as G8. Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I would like to argue to keep. Based on this criterion for musical groups from this page: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

The following cited articles I believe meet this:

1. Billboard (https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/8509848/gypsy-temple-today-video)

2. Bellevue Reporter (https://www.bellevuereporter.com/news/local-band-rocks-students-to-vote/)

3. Atwood Magazine (https://atwoodmagazine.com/gtpn-gypsy-temple-pick-a-number/)

4. K5 News (https://www.king5.com/article/news/seattle-band-has-a-mental-health-message/281-bf7fd60f-bcf2-4b4e-b7f5-d8cd7d001793)

5. Museum of Pop Culture (https://www.mopop.org/about-mopop/the-mopop-blog/posts/2018/february/misundvrstood-make-no-mistake/)

6. LA Fashion Festival (https://lafashionfestival.com/2019-program/gypsy-temple)

7. Pure Grain Audio (https://puregrainaudio.com/news/king-youngblood-emerge-out-of-gypsy-temple-armed-with-a-heavy-handed-music-video-premiere)

KaylynBuckley (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above editor is the creator of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. There are some half-decent references here, but I'm still doubtful whether the band meets the notability criteria. Moving to draft, improving and then submitting for review might result in constructive criticism from a wider set of more experienced contributors. Deb (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of the Terms of use. If not delete, the draftify, per Deb. Guy (help!) 11:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy! How does it violate the Terms of Use? Thanks! I'm certainly not opposed to moving it to drafts per Deb.KaylynBuckley (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, I don't get the violation of Terms of Use either. But the Billboard reference is the only decent source here so It probably would benefit from taking to draft and either finding better sources (rather than sources for the sake of sources) or wait until the band gets more coverage/more accomplishments, per WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume JzG is referring to paid editing. But I don't think we delete articles for a mere suspicion of it.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft with a requirement for regular WP:AFC review before restoration to mainspace. BD2412 T 14:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft per BD2412. The Billboard reference is good. The K5 news is of debatable merit for establishing notability, it is a major news player in the Pacific Northwest, but it could also be argued it is only local. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I am fine with draftifying instead of deleting. I also agree with Shelby Marion that the Billboard ref is the only real solid one, and even that comes in the context of the band's releasing a song through that magazine, so it has a promotional aspect to it as well. All the announcements of the band playing events are essentially trivial, and other sources look to be WP:SPS with no reputation for fact-checking and error correction. This band may well break out some day, at which time the article can be reinforced with true RS's and moved to mainspace through AfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bulleted list item Thanks everyone and thank you Beyond My Ken for the dialogue about this! I would appreciate help in editing whether it's in the current article or in draft form.

I'm still looking at a few other sources as I think there might be some additional articles out there that I've missed. What are thoughts on their coverage in Alternative Press mag? https://www.altpress.com/features/gypsy-temple-king-youngblood-stream/KaylynBuckley (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating with a couple more sources here as well as I've done a bit more research on secondary sources. :) 1. There is the Alternative Press Mag link listed above. 2. National Alliance on Mental Health Seattle, review of a concert: https://namiseattle.org/2019/05/20/gypsy-temple-king-youngblood-nami-benefit-concert-review/
Unsure if that's helpful in any of this but want to include sources as I'm finding them! Thanks again for all your help!KaylynBuckley (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against improving an article while it is under discussion at AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)KaylynBuckley (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is fully factually correct please do not delete. National press has written about this band and the writers of this article researched each item carefully. Thank you Lara Lavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.1.149 (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the band's website [26], Lara Lavi is the band's manager, so has a serious WP:COI in regard to this article. The !vote should not be counted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AccesRail[edit]

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

Not a notable company Wikieditor600 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant player in the ticketing sector. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References added fail GNG requirements by being trivial mentions (the Express Tribune reference, for example, only mentions AccesRail with corporate puff quotes and in the context of the actual subject of the article, an airline) press releases, and the like. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss South Carolina World[edit]

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

non notable pageant. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And where in the article does it not meet GNG standards. I can update the article so it includes these requirements. IZ041 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article can be fixed with a few edits, thus is not a candidate for AfD. See WP:BEFORE & WP:ATD. IZ041 (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:IZ041 if it can be fixed, then show us some significant, indepth coverage, in reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV needs to be met. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite Pageantopolis is a reliable secondary source that can be used. If Pageantopolis is not a reliable source then why is it listed as a useful resource on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants page??????? Here are the sources from Pageantopolis that are used in the article.^[2]^[3] IZ041 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process
^ "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
^ The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

@User:IZ041 in-depth coverage is needed. Just a simple trivial mention does not make a topic pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Texas World[edit]

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

Nothing indepth anywhere. Usual PR and press release articles. Not notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this pageant is not a notable then Miss World America and Miss World aren't notable pageants is the logic that I am getting. I understand not being satisfied with an article but that doesn't mean you randomly flag the article for deletion. IZ041 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article can be fixed with a few edits, thus is not a candidate for AfD. See WP:BEFORE & WP:ATD. IZ041 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:IZ041 if it can be fixed, then show us some significant, indepth coverage, in reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV needs to be met. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite Pageantopolis is a reliable secondary source that can be used. If Pageantopolis is not a reliable source then why is it listed as a useful resource on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants page??????? Here are the sources from Pageantopolis that are used in the article.^[1]^[2] IZ041 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
^ The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

@User:IZ041 in-depth coverage is needed. Just a simple trivial mention does not make a topic pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss North Carolina World[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Non notable pageant. No mention in any RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And where in the article does it not meet GNG standards. I can update the article so it includes these requirements. IZ041 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article can be fixed with a few edits, thus is not a candidate for AfD. See WP:BEFORE & WP:ATD. IZ041 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:IZ041 if it can be fixed, then show us some significant, indepth coverage, in reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV needs to be met. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite Pageantopolis is a reliable secondary source that can be used. If Pageantopolis is not a reliable source then why is it listed as a useful resource on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants page??????? Here are the sources from Pageantopolis that are used in the article.^[1]^[2] IZ041 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
^ The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

@User:IZ041 in-depth coverage is needed. Just a simple trivial mention does not make a topic pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Oklahoma World[edit]

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

non notable pageant. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And where in the article does it not meet GNG standards. I can update the article so it includes these requirements. IZ041 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near enough sources to meet GNG. Too many of these sources are mere lists or primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article can be fixed with a few edits, thus is not a candidate for AfD. See WP:BEFORE & WP:ATD. IZ041 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:IZ041 if it can be fixed, then show us some significant, indepth coverage, in reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV needs to be met. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite Pageantopolis is a reliable secondary source that can be used. If Pageantopolis is not a reliable source then why is it listed as a useful resource on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants page??????? Here are the sources from Pageantopolis that are used in the article.^[1]^[2] IZ041 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
^ The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

@User:IZ041 in-depth coverage is needed. Just a simple trivial mention does not make a topic pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are two calls for a redirect, but the reasoning is little beyond an assertion of non-notability. (A redirect is of course possible as an editorial decision, regardless of this AFD.) I am not altogether convinced by the sources provided either, since they are not really in-depth coverage. Nonetheless, I am not willing to close this AFD with a decisive result at this point since the AFD discussion is sullied by the nominator being a now blocked sockpuppet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Indiana World[edit]

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

~~Non notable paegent. Fails GNG, no mention in RS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States representatives at Miss World along with others in Template:US at Miss World state pageants. Lower-level stages of the main competition are not themselves notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And where in the article does it not meet GNG standards. I can update the article so it includes these requirements. IZ041 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also if Preliminary competitions to the main national competition are "not themselves notable" then we would asking for redirects not only for this pageant but also for preliminary pageants for Miss USA, Miss America, Miss Universe, Miss World and all other preliminary competitions that are to determine contestants for the main competition (whether being national or international respectively). Miss Indiana USA or Miss Indiana for example should be redirected to Miss USA and Miss America because they’re preliminary, "Lower-level" stages of the competition and should not exist according your logic. IZ041 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Article on Miss World USA. Different state level pageants receive different levels of coverage this does not receive the coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article does receive the coverage to justify an article.^[1]^[2]^[3] IZ041 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:IZ041 Significant, indepth coverage, in reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV needs to be met. Trivial mentions in unreliable sources, is not enough MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite The Spokesman-Review is a reliable secondary resource and so is Pageantopolis. If Pageantopolis is not a reliable source then why is it listed as a useful resource on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants page??????? Here are the sources from Pageantopolis that are used in the article.^[4]^[5] IZ041 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Miss Indiana World 2015 Alexandra Syndram". Pageant Live YouTube Channel. May 17, 2015. Retrieved May 12, 2020.
^ "Miss Indiana World 1993 Ad". The Carbon, page. 5. October 12, 1992. Retrieved May 10, 2020.
^ "The Spokesman-Review - Google News Archive Search". news.google.com. The Spokesman-Review. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
^ "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
^ The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

@User:IZ041 in-depth coverage is needed. Just a simple trivial mention does not make a topic pass GNG. Just where in the The Spokesman-Review is this pageant mentioned in depth. A single line of five words, and that too about the winner, not the pageant itself, is not enough for GNG pass. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Washington World[edit]

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

There are no RS that cover this indepth. Fails GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And where in the article does it not meet GNG standards. I can update the article so it includes these requirements. IZ041 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article can be fixed with a few edits, thus is not a candidate for AfD. See WP:BEFORE & WP:ATD. IZ041 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:IZ041 if it can be fixed, then show us some significant, indepth coverage, in reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV needs to be met. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:MistyGraceWhite Pageantopolis is a reliable secondary source that can be used. If Pageantopolis is not a reliable source then why is it listed as a useful resource on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants page??????? Here are the sources from Pageantopolis that are used in the article.^[1]^[2] IZ041 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
^ The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

@User:IZ041 in-depth coverage is needed. Just a simple trivial mention does not make a topic pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sona Modern Public School[edit]

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

A public school that exists. No reason for a wikipedia article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL Spiderone 11:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CBSE recognised mainstream educational institute. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 16:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Capankajsmilyo according to WP:NSCHOOL

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both.

MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass any notability criteria. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 05:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RiverVoyages.com[edit]

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

Not notable per Wikipedia standards; article averages less than 1 pageview per day Wikieditor600 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page views of an article are not an indication of a topic's notability and should never be used as an argument in a deletion discussion. Low page views are not a reason for an article to be deleted and high page views are not a reason for an article to be kept. Topics should be judged on their notability and coverage found in reliable sources. See WP:PAGEVIEW and WP:NOBODYREADSIT. MarkZusab (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Staying with the notability aspect of the original nomination, the nearest to a claim in the article text is the assertion (from the firm's website) that this was "one of the first travel agents to specialise in river cruises". That claim has a lot of elasticity, which is probably needed given that people have been going on river cruises long before the 9 years lifespan of this firm. Even if supported by references, I don't see that as a strong claim anyway. My searches are not finding better than routine coverage of this and World Travel Holdings' other brands. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. qedk (t 愛 c) 08:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Street, Aberdeen[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. It exists and there are potentially some notable buildings on the road, but the road itself isn't notable. Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. If this street had local significance I'd expect the Aberdeen page to show that, but it doesn't mention it except in passing. asnac (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isnt notable. TheImaCow (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic street associated with notable people. See here for some details. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. If there were any cited prose, I'd say try to merge it into the article on the city, but there isn't any. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs expansion but the street is clearly historic and notable. Yes, if a street is lined with historic buildings then it is itself notable. This is not "inherited notability"; this is common sense (at least for an architectural historian). Expecting every notable street to be mentioned in the article on a major city is particularly ludicrous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic road that's only 300m long, lacks significant coverage why the street itself is notable rather than just being downtown by the train station and shopping center. Source above is about William Guild; can be mentioned at e.g. Aberdeen#Landmarks and Transport in Aberdeen. Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, run of the mill road that lacks any significant coverage, fails GNG. The notability of buildings on the street do not convey notability onto the street itself. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a historic street. The street is full of historic buildings. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A street full of historic buildings is a notable street (activity & architecture) Djflem (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Street[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. It exists and there are potentially some notable buildings on the road, but the road itself isn't notable. Angryskies (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Crimson Comedian Talk 17:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found in-depth coverage by reliable sources after a few seconds of searching.[27][28][29]Oakshade (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two articles add nothing to the article. One is a planning application for new housing, this happens in thousands of streets every year. The third reference is a book describing a few buildings. Angryskies (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The street is clearly historic and notable. Yes, if a street is lined with historic buildings then it is itself notable. This is not "inherited notability"; this is common sense (at least for an architectural historian). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I updated the reference in the article from Cassell's Old and New Edinburgh: Its History, its people and its places by James Grant (1881-1883). That reference, plus Oakshade's reference to Edinburgh by Gifford et al (1991) demonstrates that this specific street has been written about by independent sources for for more than a century. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I think more work could be done to provide references in the article, what is there would seem to suggest notability as other users have commented. Dunarc (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Architecture and activities are what makes streets notable, such as this one.Djflem (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The street historic and notable. Historic buildings = historic street. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Kunj Marg[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Crimson Comedian Talk 18:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can be notable if reliable sources will be addEasytostable (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not discussed in reliable sources enough to pass WP:GNG, fails WP:GEOROAD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kellogg School of Management rankings[edit]

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

Comes under WP:RAWDATA as a table with no context. A summary of this could easily be included in prose within the main article if consensus required it, but I believe it’s too detailed. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-organized schools[edit]

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

This list contains just three schools, and there’s no definition of what a self-organising school even is. It also includes universities as well as high schools. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources whatsoever, so it fails WP:LISTN, no indication of what a “Self-organising school” is or any inclusion criteria, so it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even if the concept of Self-organising schools is notable, which I highly doubt as it appears to be a concept thought up by a random non-notable Australian teacher in 2007 which no-one paid any attention to, there are only 3 entries, there would be no need for a independent list. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context, and no sources. Aside from failing WP:LISTN, the fact that there is no sourced information alone should prevent it from being retained on Wikipedia. Rorshacma (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DMySon 04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout (David Bowie song)[edit]

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

A not-that-notable track from Bowie's 1977 album "Heroes". While it does have a few reliable sources, the information present can easily be added into the album article, which I plan to expand upon one of these days. Other than that it doesn't appear to be notable in its own right. – zmbro _(talk) 19:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is it your opinion that the only notable track is the title track? I see that every track has an article... Caro7200 (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caro7200 Not necessarily. If any other track besides the title track deserved a standalone article it would be "Beauty and the Beast", as it was the second single off the album. However, where a few other song articles currently stand it appears ones like this one don't have notability enough for an article. Although I am a person who enjoys seeing articles for every song, I understand that that's not how this site works. Almost every song from Bowie's 1970s output has its own article, but of course, that doesn't mean every single one deserves their own article. – zmbro _(talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album) – no reason why it shouldn't be redirected to its parent album. Richard3120 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album) per WP:NSONGS. Please note that “all the other songs of the album have articles” is not a valid reason to keep a song article. If anything, it’s likely a explanation as to why someone erroneously created it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album): Not all songs in the album are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? And even if not all songs in the album are notable, why is this particular song not notable? Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rlendog, per reasons stated by the users above who have the same vote as mine. I won't explain any further and this also applies to similar recent AfDs I voted on. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - None of the arguments above get to the issue of whether this song meets our notability guidelines or not. From my own bookshelves, Peter Doggett's The Man Who Sold the World, Nicholas Pegg's The Complete David Bowie and David Buckley's The Complete Guide to the Music of David Bowie all have an entry specifically on this song. James Perone's The Words and Music of David Bowie has a good size paragraph analyzing the song. A Google Books search shows other sources, such as Experiencing David Bowie: A Listener's Companion. I am sure there are plenty more given that this is a song from more than 40 years ago (and 2 additional references are already in the article) but this is enough to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People have cited NSONGS, which is a valid reason for redirecting. Regardless of sourcing, (which is very weak) there’s very little content present. It’s a list if a couple live performances and a couple generic factoids and trivia. (With gems like “Bowie says the song ‘Blackout’ is about Blackouts”. Gee, thanks.) When there’s very little to be said if a song, NSONGS says to just cover it in the context of its album article. Unless someone starts doing some serious expansion, redirect is a pretty common route here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is not great, but there is material with which to expand the article. Per NSONGS, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." And this song has been. Rlendog (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to expand the article with the sources you have, I'll be happy to change my vote. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with the reasoning that these Bowie songs are "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works". The whole point of the first three books cited above is that they have a section for every single Bowie song. So the song is not the subject of the work, and following that logic, every single Bowie song would be notable enough for its own article, even the obscure ones from his pre-fame days in the 1960s, because every one of them has their own section within the book... of course they do, that's the point of the books. Perone's book only analyses the song within the context of the album, I believe. There is no indication at all from any of the books that this song is notable outside of its parent album – there is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument above that there will be more coverage from 1977–78, but there's no reason to believe this is true... the books above are pretty exhaustively researched using media from the time and they still haven't come up with much in the way of concrete facts for the nominated songs, just a brief quote or two from Bowie himself and speculation from critics. Unless there is any chance at all that this article could be expanded to more than a stub of a couple of paragraphs, I honestly believe it's more of a hindrance than a help to spin out every song on the album into a separate article – apart from now having to maintain a dozen articles instead of one, most of the songs on the second sides of both the Low and "Heroes" albums are instrumental "mood pieces", and I believe it makes much more sense to discuss the background and context of these instrumentals all together within the context of the album article, rather than separately. Undoubtedly some Bowie album tracks are worthy of their own articles – the nominator has been responsible for improving "Station to Station (song)" and "Ziggy Stardust (song)" to GA status, for example (so I doubt they would have nominated these particular songs if they thought there was a chance of substantially improving them), and there are probably others like "The Bewlay Brothers" which could conceivably make a substantial article in the future. But not every album track will meet this possibility. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Richard. I own Pegg, Doggett, O'Leary, Cann and Buckley's Strange Fascination and while each one of these books goes into detail regarding every track, the amount of detail in each varies substantially. While Pegg has devoted pages worth of writing to songs like "Life on Mars?", he writes about the Diamond Dogs deep cut "Big Brother" for only 3 paragraphs and that currently has its own page. Pegg even calls the track "We are the Dead" "one of the most criminally underrated songs in the entire Bowie canon" and that doesn't have its own page. My point is, even though these songs have entries on them in all these books, I find web reviews hardly mention these tracks, even in full album reviews. The reason I wanted to expand tracks like "Station to Station" is because that song is viewed as the bridge between Young Americans and Low and it's also considered one of his greatest. But all of the songs are side two of Low and the majority of "Heroes" are ambient instrumentals which to me can all be summed up in their respective album articles. I'm currently working on expanding Aladdin Sane and will eventually do the same for Low and "Heroes"; I aim to have a paragraph for each track in the vein of my vast expansion of Hunky Dory. But currently, the info present in these smaller song articles can easily be placed into their parent album articles. – zmbro _(talk) 18:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple books that cover every David Bowie song then perhaps every David Bowie song is notable. There are very few artists about which this could be said. That still means that multiple reliable sources found these songs notable enough to cover, and there is no reason that coverage should not be reflected in Wikipedia. Rlendog (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what is being said at all. All this info can easily be reflected in the "Heroes" album article, which is currently less than 30k bytes. I recently expanded Hunky Dory with paras for each track. "Eight Line Poem" is a track that doesn't have its own WP page, and deservedly so, as pretty much all the info about the song I could find in Pegg, Doggett, O'Leary, etc. (without repeating info), all fit into one paragraph. A song like that doesn't need its own article. Through the research I've done, most of the tracks off "Heroes" have the same fate – all of their info can be fit into one paragraph. Now, if you think differently, then go ahead and begin expanding all of these articles. I'm working on more important Bowie articles rn so I can't. But since you, in particular, think these songs are so important and qualify WP:NSONGS then be my guest. – zmbro _(talk) 15:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough here for an article. If you can use one of the books to improve even better. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the nominator, with access to all those books, wouldn't have tried to do that first before nominating it? Richard3120 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IMO, it's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. Since each of them has their sources, they can be discussed in the mentioned album. Revolver is an example. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, the content does not pass WP:NSONGS criteria for an independent article. The information here could be easily contained on the parent album's page. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact that other pages for songs from the album exist is the EXACT REASON WHY THIS ONE SHOULD NOT. Topics do not inherit notability from other related topics. Additionally, articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources. To be honest Joe_the_Lion, Sons of the Silent Age, V-2 Schneider, Sense of Doubt, Moss Garden, Neuköln and The Secret Life of Arabia should all be merged. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 18:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)**I don't understand the comment that "articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources." If we do not rely on published sources what do we rely on? Rlendog (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable song. There are other sources that could be used, and I've added a few. The Victoria and Albert Museum in London exhibited the cut-up lyrics of "Blackout" in 2013 as part of its "David Bowie is" exhibition. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the expansion work done post-nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changed my vote, per WP:HEY. Unlike the similar AfDs, the article has been expanded. I believe it's good enough to meet WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: so you like the Ch-ch-ch-Changes....? :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, yes indeed. Those changes got me satisfied enough to change my vote. 😏 ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONGS. Cool Marc ✉ 09:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of You've Got episodes[edit]

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

A non notable list of promotional web films. A list of notable participants is already included on the main topic page, meaning there is no content of value that could potentially be merged. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely worthless and non-notable article on a long-forgotten web series. Dronebogus (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "Alla Biennale di Montecarlo anche l'artista italiano Cesare Catania". www.paeseitaliapress.it (in Italian). Retrieved 2020-05-19.

[2] Redazione. "L'Arte al centro dell'Universo. Cesare Catania alla Biennale d'arte a Saint Paul de Vence". www.artemagazine.it (in Italian). Retrieved 2020-05-19.

[3] "Grande successo di Cesare Catania durante l'ultima esposizione a Montecarlo -" (in Italian). Retrieved 2020-05-19.

[4] "La Barclays Bank di Monte Carlo sceglie l'artista italiano Cesare Catania per la sua nuova esposizione d'arte nella sede del Principato di Monaco". Montecarlonews.it (in Italian). 2019-05-13. Retrieved 2020-05-19.

[indiat-5] December 23, Romita Datta New Delhi; December 31, 2018 ISSUE DATE; December 23, 2018UPDATED; Ist, 2018 12:01. "Mammoth Project | The Social Warriors". India Today. Retrieved 2020-04-26. {{cite web}}: |first4= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[cert-6] Network, Wildlife Friendly Enterprise. "Nuxulbari Tea Estate Becomes 2nd Globally to Earn Elephant Friendly™ Certification". PRLog. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

[7] Singh, Kriti (2018-09-18). "Indian tea estate gets world's first 'elephant-friendly' tag". Asia Times. Retrieved 2020-05-17.

[8] "Nari Shakti Puraskar - Gallery". narishaktipuraskar.wcd.gov.in. Retrieved 2020-04-11.

[faceb-9] "Ministry of Women & Child Development, Government of India". www.facebook.com. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

[thirty-10] "Nari Shakti of 30 women to be honoured at Rashtrapati Bhavan". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2020-05-15.

[hohoOneOff-11] "These 12 women are crusaders of change in the midst of on-going climate crisis". Vogue India. 2020-01-16. Retrieved 2020-05-12.

[12] ttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process

[13] "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.

[14] The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

[15] "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.

[16] The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

[17] "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.

[18] The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

[19] "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.

[20] The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

[21] "Miss Indiana World 2015 Alexandra Syndram". Pageant Live YouTube Channel. May 17, 2015. Retrieved May 12, 2020.

[22] "Miss Indiana World 1993 Ad". The Carbon, page. 5. October 12, 1992. Retrieved May 10, 2020.

[23] "The Spokesman-Review - Google News Archive Search". news.google.com. The Spokesman-Review. Retrieved 2020-05-13.

[24] "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.

[25] The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

[26] "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.

[27] The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]