Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 May	24 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Inner Circle (2005 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Also written like an advertisement. KidAd (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate this is a notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate (Boney M. album)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Did not chart. Fails WP:NALBUM. This venue is a last resort after multiple redirect overwrites. Another common target of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanoi vandal. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at the very least redirect and salt. This is yet another of those unremarkable Boney M. compilations that fails WP:NALBUM and a certain IP insists on repeatedly restoring the redirect. Richard3120 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (Richard3120's comment about SALT above is also worthy of consideration). Boney M must have had shifty managers because the world, and Wikipedia, are swimming with useless and repetitive compilation albums decades after the band ceased recording. At least five such albums have recently gone through this AfD process, and that's only the ones I can remember off the top of my head. This one is like all the others: a quickie release that was unnoticed by the public or the music media and was immediately forgotten. There is evidence that an editor who is unfamiliar with the WP:NALBUM notability requirements insists on helping these Boney M compilation articles survive, so further action may be needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Boney M.'s writer/producer/manager (and provider of most of the male vocals on their records) was Frank Farian, the same man who later gave the world the even more artificial creation Milli Vanilli. Farian simply made sure that he produced dozens of re-edits, remixes and re-recordings of every Boney M. song, so that every compilation album would have very slightly different versions of each song from the previous ones. In addition, many of the albums were produced specifically for individual countries, rather than all across Europe, with the same slight differences in track listings and cover art. This has resulted in literally dozens, if not hundreds, of Boney M. compilations over the last 40 years, but no more than three or four of them are truly notable. Even the biggest one, The Magic of Boney M. – 20 Golden Hits, released at the height of their popularity in 1980, does not contain the 7" single versions of the hits... they are yet more re-edited versions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: - Thanks for the info. I definitely knew about Frank Farian's involvement, which makes all Boney M compilations suspect in my eyes, but I did not know about all the minor remixes and different song versions. It's too bad "shysterism" is not a criterion for deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUM. No evidence has been provided that this album appeared on a national music chart, was certified gold, or received multiple reviews or news articles in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:04, 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 merge to List of original programs distributed by Apple TV+. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled original programs for Apple TV+[edit]

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

Better served by Template:Apple TV+. Fuddle (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of original programs distributed by Apple TV+. There are only two programs listed here, so there's no reason for a separate article about the cancelled programs. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Better put these two items with the others in List of original programs distributed by Apple TV+, if they are not already there. Alex-h (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of original programs distributed by Apple TV+. However, do not include on Template:Apple TV+ since we don't have (and most likely will never have) articles on these two shows. Pichpich (talk) 20:36, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Die Strömms[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Obvious promotional attempt for non-notable band, entirely sourced to the band's website and social media. No reliable independent sources found. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oppose/keep principle member of artist is verifiable and featured guitarist on 4 other wikipedia band pages. Kane Kelly (Spy Glass Blue, Scaterd Few, Greyskull, Between Thieves) thecosmicstring (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: thecosmicstring (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Being in other bands does not make this band notable, per WP:INHERITED, especially as Kane Kelly is not notable himself (I see you created his article page and that was deleted as well due to lack of notability). Of the four other bands he was in that have Wikipedia articles, he was in two of them for less than a year, and one of the others doesn't appear to be notable. Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.iheart.com/artist/die-stromms-31970994/ http://www.knon.org/reckless-rock-radio/ https://kegl.iheart.com/featured/loud-and-local/content/2019-12-26-looking-back-at-dfw-local-bands-in-2019/The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1500:443a:5901:9454:7ab4:2a70 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC) — 2605:6000:1500:443a:5901:9454:7ab4:2a70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Instead of copying and pasting the criteria from WP:NMUSIC, could you please actually show evidence that the band meets these criteria? Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a promotion for a non-notable project of Kane Kelly. Though if Kelly has been a regular member of several notable music groups, maybe a Wikipedia page about him would have more success. Sionk (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~oppose/keep~~ Project is notable as it has garnered radio airplay and is available on all streaming formats. thecosmicstring (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: thecosmicstring (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

You cannot vote twice, so I'm striking your second vote. Being available to buy doesn't make a recording notable... all records are available to buy, even some of my cousins have uploaded their music to Apple Music. And neither does just one play on a radio station, it would have to be on rotation or as part of an individual segment focusing on the band. Please see WP:BAND for notability requirements. Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that the band's name is presented two different ways depending on where you look, as either "Die Strömms" or simply "Strömms". There is an empty entry at AllMusic, which doesn't help, and otherwise I cannot find a single reliable media mention or review of any of the albums. All I can find is the typical retail listings and streaming services, and any band can get themselves onto those. To satisfy the Wikipedia notability requirements this one-man act needs to be noticed by someone other than itself and its fans. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the band. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Note: I am new to AfD) per DarkOrchid, no reliable sources, no media mentions or reviews. Not notable. Just gonna edit a bit (talk) 17:32, 30 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 merge to List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 21:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015 New York City pressure cooker bomb plot[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing about this article indicates it is any different from the foiled terrorist plots mentioned in the List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11 article. An attack hasn't even been attempted in this case. If deleted, any relevant information from this article can be moved to that one, because it does need mentioning there. Love of Corey (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11; does not merit a stand-alone article per WP:NOTNEWS. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or merge~~ ~~with April 2015 New York City pressure cooker bomb plot.~~ Are these two very similar plots unrelated? My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. Merging this with that article sounds a lot like WP:SYNTH. Love of Corey (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I do not see it included to the List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11. I do agree that not all terrorist plots are notable. However, those linked to famous international organizations (like ISIS or Al Qaeda) and covered in multiple RS I think are all notable enough to deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I said anything relevant can be merged to that article. And this article doesn't have a lot of RS to support notability, nor does it involve any direct link to famous international terrorist organizations like you say. This is just an act of support, nothing more. Love of Corey (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply think such cases are not "routine" crime cases, very far from it. They need to be included somewhere, on separate pages or/and in a list. In this case I would say in the both to provide some details.My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's why I think the List of unsuccessful terrorist plots in the United States post-9/11 article covers it perfectly. Love of Corey (talk) 21:05, 29 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) b uidhe 21:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Harris[edit]

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

Many Sue Harrises, so difficult to find info. I couldn't find sources to confirm she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm pretty sure she is notable. Will search for some more sources. e.g.this one Martinevans123 (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that criterion (5) at WP:MUSICBIO says:

"Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

I guess this is disputed as the criterion assumes the albums are solo albums released under her sole name? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a number of new references have been added to the article. Not familiar with some but she does have a staff written biography at AllMusic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional book reference here, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 that seems like quite a strong source and I have mentioned it at Talk:Sue Harris. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable for me. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The beeb covered her and they're is a couple of Gbook mentions. Two albums and still signed, new album coming. Not a lot really, but sufficient for basic notability. Some minor coverage in the local paper in Norfolk. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Edwards (musician)[edit]

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

Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:12, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Githa Hampson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and not notable as an athlete. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local athlete. Geschichte (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some minimal discussion of why she is not notable would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To satisfy WP:NATH, an athlete must be in the top tier of their sport, whether that's competing in the olympics, finishing top eight in a global contest, holding records or being listed in a prominent hall of fame. Regardless, being team captain for the University of California, Los Angeles women's track and cross country teams does not tick that box. We do have some athletes who don't clearly pass that. However, to merit an article in that case one has to have WP:SIGCOV that Hampson simply doesn't have. The Daily Bruin and The Corsair are student newspapers, the The Register-Guard is a local paper, as is MailTribune.com.. All the LATimes has to say is "Kipp Ortenburger of Cuesta won the men's race and Githa Hampson of Santa Monica took the women's title." The only sources that give her more than passing mentions are those from the Daily Bruin and a GSearch indicates no possible missing sources. She appears to have been a decent runner in college, maybe set some college level records; but she has never done anything more then that to establish notability, and retiring at the end of college makes it unlikely she ever will. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Local event does not make her notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:19, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 21:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy Rednecks[edit]

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

I think this group falls short of WP:BAND. Of the three references used in the article Source 1 is a passing mention, Source 2 mentions the band in the context of a larger subject along with several other artists, and Source 3 is an interview in a local newspaper. A further search didn't turn up anything in terms of significant coverage. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as the LA Weekly which with a circulation of 160,000 is a regional source rather than a local source and in any case local reliable sources press such as Culver City are acceptable for WP:GNG except for companies and organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first LA Weekly article doesn't even talk about the band at all, its mention is in the weekly show listings at the very end of the article, and the second one is not particularly in-depth coverage as it is a quick highlight along with at least three other performers. Culver City article is an interview. I just do not see how that gets us to a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added additional regional references including a listing as a Top-10 LA Country/Americana band in 2017.Toxdoc411 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even the new sources are not in depth. The current sourcing is as follows: 1) Two sentences about one of the band's members; 2) Passing mention when listing the bands that played at a five year anniversary of a music club; 3) part of a listicle; 4) Not particularly in-depth coverage as it is a highlight along with at least three other performers who are performing at the same country music club; 5) An interview in a local newspaper; and 6) a link to their AllMusic page which is not a reliable source. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources but in this case with no biography or album reviews it doesn't count to notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source here, and this article about Hollywood Country does have significant coverage about them if you scroll down the article here, this is a passing mention but it does say that the LA Reader classed them as best local band in 1995 here which is a claim to pass WP:NMUSIC criteria 7, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Kay[edit]

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

delete: Due to significant issues. The below points are an overview on why this article needs to be deleted

WP:NPOV – this article has not been written with a neutral point of view. It sounds like a PR firm has written it as noted by Deacon Vorbis in May 2020. WP:VERIFY – This articles lacks enough verifiable sources, citations are from three tabloid Australian tabloid outlets with sensationalized headlines. Moreover the reliability of the other two sources can be disputed, Armin Navabi's personal podcast is not at all a reliable source as per Wikipedia Standards. We have placed insufficient source tags for over 7 months and there have not been any additions or better sources added to this article. WP:WWIN and WP:ORIGINAL – This article does not have any substantial biography or notability. It is not what Wikipedia is, the biography of this living person should not be on Wikipedia due to the lack of notability. The person has NOT received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The person has NOT made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, although this may be disputed but the fact of the matter is their contribution has not made an impact in their respective "field"

Tahadharamsi (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. 03:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

*Delete Coverage is very one-off and fails to thoroughly establish the notability of the subject. If subject receives as much coverage again without depending on any other similar subject's coverage then the article can be recreated. Orientls (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per lengthy explanation provided by Normal Op. Orientls (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is a terrible place for such articles, and they shouldn't be included. -- John Larsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.134.17 (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — 212.237.134.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This article is vital to the open pursuit of Free Speech & Inquiry, and must be kept.
Zara Kay, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is a courageous heroine of great notability and repute in the Atheist community. She rescues asylum seekers, campaigns tirelessly as a voice for the voiceless, and her work is published/referenced/featured all over the world, with five quick examples coming from India, Netherlands, Bulgaria, USA, and the United Kingdom. She is the founder of a support group for dissenting voices that speak out against sectarian militias hellbent on silencing dissent. Removing this article gives them exactly that. The arguments for deletion say the article is not "what Wikipedia is", but as Wikipedia is a general reference work, I would argue the article is precisely "what Wikipedia is". Keep it. --Ylleknivek (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more serious discussion of the sources in the article and of those proposed by Ylleknivek (despite their WP:RGW approach).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: This article and it's citations give off a strong PR vibe and it looks like that the subject might have had some say in the contents of the article. There isn't sufficient long time coverage to establish notability; fails GNG. Regarding additional sources provided by Ylleknivek, Youth Ki Awaaz is not considered to be a reliable source (RSN discussion) and neither is Times of India (RSN RFC). Times of India is specially notorious for taking money for publishing bullshit. I don't know much about the non-Indian sources but they also seem unreliable on a glance. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Normal Op has presented a good keep argument keep argument, I think I agree with them. But someone should still look into the PR thing though, PR and advocacy like this does incredible amounts of damage to Wikipedia. Too many new accounts coming out of woodworks on this AfD. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~: As mentioned this article lacks neutrality, notability and trusted sources. All the sources provided by Ylleknivek are unreliable and self-serving. YKA (Pakistan) is noted as non-reliable source. DDS (Netherlands) is right winged blog again not reliable. The CFI (USA) is from a non-profit news release, again a non-neutral source - a non-profit will publish releases that further their cause and not from a NPOV. Explanation for Times of India has been explained by TryKid. As for this article being "What Wikipedia is" - it most definitely is not what Wikipedia is. This person does not meet the standards for a biography on Wikipedia, their contributions to the cause are not significant or notable. The use of this article has come acroos as a PR gimmick. Having a couple of citations and a small social media following does not make one notable, I tried to look for the subjects "support group" but have not come across any tangible effects of her works. I refer Ylleknivek to the policy WP:NPF, WP:AVOIDVICTIM in addition to this article having 0 primary sources, disputed secondary sources, non-verifiable content, being self-promoted, and promoting propaganda. Tahadharamsi (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote struck. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some more keep comments in the article's talk page so any closer might want to look at them. Also, I've notified the creator of the article about this discussion, which it seems wasn't done. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I still stand with my stance, the discussion on the talk page further enhances my point that this article is a PR piece and is not What Wikipedia Is - "Zara is awesome and deserves her own Wikipedia article in order to spread awareness of who she is and what she does" the talk page comments are opinions and not a defense to the points of this debate. Moreover, they seem to have appeared due to the article's subject rallying support on Twitter. Furthermore admits to "being interviewed" for their Wikipedia Article^[1] I have reminded the talk page contributors to review WP:ADVOCACY in order to understand why I have proposed the AfD. Tahadharamsi (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was brought to my notice in my talk page hence will not vote but could find some coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6]

References

~~Weak delete~~ Neutral Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and no matter how much she may support free speech, she may not meet WP:GNG. Looking at the sources presented by Ylleknivek, #1 is a passing mention in an interview ("many notable people such as Armin Navabi, Troy Garnaut, Zara Kay helped me to rescue. The process took over a year to complete"), #2 is referencing her, quoting something she said, but it isn't about her. It's coverage of Rahaf Mohammed. #3 calls her one of the most "visible ex-Muslim women" (or at least google translate does), but it's again only a passing mention. Further, the nlwiki article on the website calls it a "right weblog" and says it is " regularly accused of bringing fake news and writing articles to provoke outrage"-- not exactly inspiring confidence in its reliability. #4 is a 115 word article on her in a source I can find nothing on in English, suggesting it's not all that well known. #5 publishes an essay by her, so by definition it isn't independent. #6 is again just a passing mention. If notability is to be established, she must be clearly shown to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, see WP:GNG. In the article, the article in The Australian seems to be rather in-depth, though it's closer to an interview then news. News.com.au is actually decent towards notability. #s three and four are generally unreliable sources per WP:RSP, and the last source is briefly quoting her. WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." However, while there are a lot of sources that mention her in passing, quote her while covering somebody else, only two actually are in-depth, and one is more like an interview than in-depth coverage. That being said, if there were a few more sources, she might be notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote as Normal Op has some valid analysis. Combined, all the sourcing makes this a very borderline case, so for what it's worth I'll register a neutral vote. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 'passing mentions' to which Eddie891 refers are valid under WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY source policy and serve to establish the merits of notability. Attacking the examples as "publishing bullshit", as TryKid libels above, is logical fallacy Ad Hominem, and as such the argument falls. Tahadharamsi's claim 'the article lacks enough verifiable sources' is specifically listed by Wikipedia as an Argument to Avoid in Deletion Discussions (WP:RUBBISH), from Surmountable Problems: "Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." (WP:SURMOUNTABLE) Furthermore, saying there "aren't enough examples" moves the goalposts back, for how many are enough? This is an informal fallacy and shows an error in reasoning. That said, while my previous examples were all print media, here is one from broadcast media, coming from a channel with millions of views and over 440,000 YouTube subscribers, looking to Zara Kay's voice precisely because this person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field of Dissent, successfully refuting the initial point. --Ylleknivek (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ylleknivek:, commenting on the veracity of the sources isn't "libel" or ad hominem. If you're actually interested in why Times of India has such bad reputation, you can read more at User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media and User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties. Also, your Facebook video link is broken and note that we need reliable sources, the number of subscribers and viewers don't matter. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TryKid: the link to Sky News Australia is a reliable source, and Sky News is one of the least biased and most reliable media organizations according to comprehensive media bias resources. The link --embedded in Facebook-- works fine on my end, tested with 4 different browsers on both mobile and desktop. --Ylleknivek (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations are reliable sources, the article has been enhanced, it was never lacking for citations, and the subject (Zara Kay) is notable. The appropriate policy for guidance of notability for an article about a person is Wikipedia:Notability (people), not WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right", which would be Wikipedia:Notability (people) (NBIO). See WP:BASIC for a short paragraph on NBIO criteria. This article, and its subject Zara Kay, meet that criteria. There is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". And if you don't agree it's substantial then I point you to there being "multiple independent sources combined to demonstrate notability." Those primary source citations, such as podcasts, have been used in the article solely to support simple biographical information such as religion of upbringing, nationality of father, university attended, age and date of immigration to Australia, participation in religious activity, and community backlash after stopping wearing a hijab. None of those facts are controversial, nor are needed to establish notability. The subject meets NBIO's notability criteria. For these reasons, we should keep the article.

Continued: Now to counter the delete-side... The nomination is seriously flawed. The nominator called every source a non-reliable source or a tabloid (including The Australian, News Corp Australia, Youth Ki Awaaz and De Dagelijkse Standaard) when only one source (Daily Star) is tagged as such at WP:RSPSOURCES (and that citation could easily be swapped out with some other). Nom has used scare quotes and loaded language to express contempt of the subject (tabloid, "field", sensationalized headlines, gimmick, small social media following), expressed impatience at the length of time this article has been sitting unfinished (see WP:IMPATIENT), and tried to set the bar for notability higher than Wikipedia requires (no significant award, no nominations, no enduring historical record, their contributions to the cause are not significant). Nom expressed a negative opinion about the subject and her accomplishments ("this may be disputed but the fact of the matter is their contribution has not made an impact in their respective "field" "), and has scolded with WP:ADVOCACY no less than three times in the last two days. Nom complained about the two who posted on the Talk page and argued that it somehow proved "that this article is a PR piece", but neither of them have edited the article nor !voted here. It seems to me that nom has been manifesting advocacy behavior throughout this AfD process, and is a single-purpose account — with 18 of their 27 edits dedicated to the deletion of this article, including their second edit which was a PROD request (which failed), and the next 8 dedicated to reaching the 10-post threshold needed to obtain auto-confirmed status and edit the article themselves and re-submit the PROD on this semi-protected article as their (exactly) tenth post! For a wiki account with just 27 edits under its belt, the nom has exceeded all speed records for "0 to experienced" AfD debater and wikilawyer. I would like to know under which other username nom has been editing so I can see their edit history. But I digress. As demonstrated above, nom has failed to present in good faith a logical argument for "lack of notability", and has failed to prove his case for the deletion of the article. (NPOV, V & OR issues can always be corrected, if they even exist here, but are not a reason for article deletion.) Therefore keep the article.

— Normal Op (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like other human beings she deserves the rights of free speech and to choose her religion, but that does not make her notable. Nika2020 (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real coverage, so fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. There is a gbook ref but that is all. There is insufficient notability here to establish even WP:BASIC. The first three are primary, failing WP:THREE. They should be rock solid, but they are not. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough news-related sources, and the coverage is significant there. The Google book source, published by Springer Publishing, also helps establish WP:GNG. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

1) I wonder why women related article deletion notice has not been listed on most active women related projects Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green

2) Personally I do not doubt notability. Availability of references valid to Wikipedian norms and actual notability are different aspects.

3) Article creation seems to be of 2019, If at all any advocacy happened in May 2020 then simply control & ignore it. We can not say Donald Trump to be not notable because he does advocacy of himself. Notabilty is independent aspect.

4) I came across this article deletion notice from creators talk page, and it seems I am already late here otherwise I could have taken a chance to improve it.- And if article remains in article namespace or in draft namespace I will spend time on it.

5) I still feel you list this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green . And if at all admins don't find it satisfactory enough - I don't say so- send it to draft.

6) I suppose two scholarly references are behind pay restricted walls which I cant access Google scholar, "Humanists in the Hood," by Dr. Sikivu Hutchins

Bookku (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your (1) item: By adding an article to Deletion sorting/Women, it is picked up by Women in Red, and this AfD is listed there. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts#AfD. Looks like the Women in Green project doesn't have a place where they list AfDs. Normal Op (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this update. IMHO. As I said above notability is not issue. The issue is formal media has not covered her as much. Even if deletion succeeds for time being -her notability for other ex-Muslim related articles going to remain. Wiping out her notability in entirety going to be difficult. Eventually she is going to find much more place in books and memoirs of Ex-Muslims and eventually article about her will make a come back at some point, if at all gets deleted. Thanks again. Bookku (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Normal Op and recent article enhancement. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

African Library and Information Associations and Institutions -AfLIA[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, nor is there likely to be. I regret that we can't justify articles of organizations such as this, but we're not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree there's not a whole lot of information here, but it seems to be borderline, and I've found a few sources through some of my subscriptions that seem to substantiate it as a rather well known, but new association in the library world. To me, it just scrapes by WP:NONPROFIT based on coverage and continental status. Should be moved to African Library and Information Associations and Institutions. See sources:

Dick, Archie L (November 2014). "What's wrong with Africanization!". Information Development. 30 (4): 382–383. doi:10.1177/0266666914552961. ISSN 0266-6669.: from abstract: "The birth of the African Library and Information Association and Institutions provides an opportunity to re-visit the idea of Africanization. Five things that are wrong with Africanization are identified and discussed." Appears to be a case study of the AfLIA, though only five pages
described in passing as a 'major library association' in Charlton, John. “A World of Reading.” Information Today, vol. 34, no. 8, 2017, p. 15, mentioned repeatedly in International Leads, the seemingly reputable journal published by the American Library Association [1], see Lee, J. (2017). Conference report: 4th african library summit / 2nd AfLIA conference. International Leads, 31(3), 18. and Shikuni, K. N. (2018). AfLIA leadership academy (AfLAc). International Leads, 32(1), 17-18.
mentioned in pretty good detail in Ekene, Osuigwe, Nkem (2019-11-22). Managing and Adapting Library Information Services for Future Users. IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-7998-1118-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which looks to be published by a decent publisher, mentioned in Abdullahi, Ismail (2017-11-07). Global Library and Information Science. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-041312-0. and Lawton, Aoife (2015-11-03). The Invisible Librarian: A Librarian's Guide to Increasing Visibility and Impact. Chandos Publishing. ISBN 978-0-08-100174-5. .
Is covered somewhat in the news: "Ethiopia : African Union Commission(AUC) Signs MOU with the African Library and Information Associations and Istitutions (AfLIA)". MENA Report. May 21, 2019.

Regards, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of evidence of notability can be found from a simple Google Books search. For example the very first entry that I get when searching for "African Library and Information Associations and Institutions" is this one, significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per user above. notability found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumlau (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with users above proposing to keep the article. The question of notability should no longer be an issue given the available evidence from credible sources. Besides, the article has seen and will continue to see significant update with sources that support the motion to keep. Regards. SBAbigstan (talk) 22:00, 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 merge to Classified information in the United States. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Form 312[edit]

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

I can't see how this topic meets WP:NOTABILITY, despite trying. It has been tagged for notability for 12 years. It exists, but I can't see any justification for an article. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Classified information in the United States, as this form appears to be a critical step in obtaining security clearances under U.S. procedures. Alternately (or additionally) merge to Executive Order 13292 that apparently caused the form to be created in the first place. Either article definitely meets notability guidelines, and would benefit from a mention of this form even if it's reduced to just a sentence or two. Paradox society 09:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge The U.S. security classification system and its use or abuse have been the subject of numerous articles and books and whistleblowers and non-disclosure agreement in general have also been important topics of public policy discussion. This form is a major component of the secrecy system for good or ill. Classified information in the United States is already a very long article. Adding the content of this article with a redirect from its title wouldn't do much harm but I don't see any benefit either. We have many subject areas where small aspects are pared off into their own article, which tends to keep things more manageable.--agr (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, but where are the sources that discuss the significance of this form? what i see at the moment is an article that confirms that the form exists, not enough to meet notability guidelines. Similar situation with Standard Form 86, Standard Form 50. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Simmons[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Shaw (footballer)[edit]

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

Three years on, still fails WP:BLP1E/WP:NFOOTY/arguably WP:NOTNEWS, was only notable because of a one-off stunt. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there may be a case on NFOOTY, he does however meet WP:GNG due to the coverage from 3rd party reliable sources. Furthermore, there have been coverage of him beyond 2017. But I also posit that nothing has changed from the original AFD verdict that would warrant deletion this time. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD was created as the event was unfolding, and the Goal coverage was just a look back at the one event, and the one event was minor (there's no article on the Sutton-Arsenal game.) WP:BLP1E trumps GNG. A redirect to Sutton United F.C.#FA Cup might be appropriate here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG, and I don’t agree that this is a BLP1E case. WP:SUSTAINED is met as he is still getting coverage three years later [2]. P-K3 (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thought he was non-notable at the last AFD, but I respect the consensus. Giant Snowman 08:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there was more than just the 2017 pie incident to demonstrate GNG during the last AFD debate, such as his 2013 firing and his 2015 rehiring. Since the February 2017 AFD, there was significant international coverage in fall 2017, when he fined and banned by the FA, from the BBC in the UK, CBC in Canada, SBS in Australia, Indonesia, Germany, France. In the following years, there's been more coverage such as last year. I didn't see how this was WP:BLP1E at the time, and the international coverage since the last AFD surely further demonstrates this.
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had a look at the last AfD, that was surprisingly a popular AfD, I remember watching the events unfold on TV which was rather popular in the news at the time, also feel that the player passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. On balance, I think the guy just meets the GNG but he does fail NFOOTY. GNG overrides SNG so keep (just). No Great Shaker (talk) 20:55, 28 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) 19:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Konstantin von Habsburg[edit]

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

The subject is a non-notable minor. The article exists solely as a genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability made. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only sources I can find are Hungarian news reports relating to his parents, where the children are mentioned in passing, and results of some central European youth equestrian sports events, where he has placed but not won. He should be mentioned in the parents' articles, but doesn't meet notability criteria for an individual article. DrKay (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being third-in-line to the former A-H throne is notable. My recommendation is to keep, but at the very least, this should be redirected or merged, not deleted. Jdcompguy (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If being third in the line to the throne of a country that has not existed for over a century were notable, there would be plenty of reliable sources discussing Karl-Konstantin and what he's up to. But there are not any. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a former discussion of proposed deletion found the article notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's an even worse argument than the one you made eight years ago. The argument in the former discussion was that he's just notable. The analysis of sources done by DrKay, however, shows that he is not. It would be much more helpful if you could demonstrate his notability according to the basic criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - "that's an even worse argument than the one you made eight years ago", it is no more than your personal opinion (which I do not care), there was a valid decision 8 years earlier. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I take it that you will not attempt to demonstrate the child's notability according to this project's policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DrKay -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being any in line to a throne of a non-existant entitty that has no power is not a sign of notability. I have consistently said we need good sourcing to justify having an article on a minor. We totally lack it here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record I once spent a whole summer creating a database of the royal families of Europe. I have studied the Habsburg's particularly heavily. I hold the view that unless we have something unrelated to their connection to a lost royal title to show notability, we should only have mentions of members of the house born since 1918 in the general article on the family. Of course I also think that in most cases we should not have articles on members of royal houses who died as minors who never ruled, but unfortunately we have some articles that are based on the mistaken idea that Wikipedia is a geneological database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes this article may get interest in terms of a similar number of page views to random politicians and the like, but there is nothing of note here that that traffic could not find off Wikipedia in the Almanach de Gotha or various websites. - dwc lr (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DrKay and Surtsicna.Smeat75 (talk) 13:37, 28 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) 19:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mazen Al-Suwailem[edit]

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

Plays in second tier Saudi league. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Dewritech (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject seems to have played in the 2017–18 Saudi Professional League (a fully-professional league per WP:FPL) with Al-Fateh. Even though they currently play in second tier league they once played in the top league. Passes WP:NFOOTY #2. --Dps04 (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- 12 minutes of play, 3 years ago (per Soccerway), does not confer notability when GNG is failed so substantially. Giant Snowman 18:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in a professional league and received significant coverage in Saudi media. TonyStarks (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, but editors are reminded of long standing consensus through AfD that players who only just pass nfooty must show GNG. Some claims of GNG in the discussion but specific sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Browse the google and barely saw any results for this player, fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SIGCOV and not at a notable footballer, play in country's second div league. Drat8sub (talk) 01:02, 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) 19:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela von Habsburg[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. Unlike her parents and some of her siblings, she appears to be an entirely private individual. This article amounts to nothing more than genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Judging solely from the sources in the article, the only notable thing she's done appears to be getting evicted from her massive and hugely expensive New York penthouse in 1990. She was a director of Dragon International Film Studios and does call herself Archduchess Michaela von Habsburg, she published a letter in New York Magazine under that name in 1987. However, these don't rise to the level of notability we would expect on wikipedia. There's no consistent press coverage or public life. She is mentioned in biographies of her father, so Otto von Habsburg#Family would be an appropriate Redirect target. DrKay (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being on some minor film festival board, getting a letter published once in a magazine and being evicted from your property are not signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 19:50, 28 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. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasim Fekrat[edit]

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

See discussion at my talk page - article subject has requested deletion. Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Updated to add: I have reverted to a previous version at the request of the article subject. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is the relevant policy. However, unfortunately it is explicitly aimed at biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures. This cannot apply to an individual who has given multiple interviews over a period of years for NATO and the New York Times, etc.
It also seems that the article subject is not actually requesting deletion; at least, they are not averse to the article existing in some form or another. But that's a discussion for the article talk page rather than AfD.
I commented at the recent WP:AN thread; pinging each other participants.@Creffett, Drmies, JzG, Mjroots, Primefac, SoWhy, and Sphilbrick:. Just realised I was the only non-admin there; sorry about that. ——Serial^# 20:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, that comment was posted not long after I opened this AfD. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, and apologies for my lack of precision; I didn't mean to imply that you opened this in spite of them saying that—I was just (clumsily, perhaps) making a general suggestion as to their position now. ——Serial^# 15:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Surely, and none taken - just wanted to make it clear for the record. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, and it appears the subject’s concerns can be resolved through ordinary editing. P-K3 (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable. There are no policy-based grounds for deletion, and the subject's wishes are no controlling, nor do they make a lot of sense under the circumstances: an en.wiki is highly unlikely to make his position less secure then it alreayd is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep people don't get to decide if Wikipedia has an article on them or not.
Notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm seeing nothing which indicates any veracity to the claim made that having an article endangers his life. Any BLP issues may be brought up at talk and dealt with in the normal editing process. Per established precedent (Sally Boazman (details), Jim Hawkins (details), subjects of articles do not get to dictate to Wikipedia as to whether or not they have an article. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao - I have undone your change to an older version of the article. Your status as an admin does not give you any special authority in this respect, and I would have reverted to the current version no matter who did it. There was no consensus for the reversion, no discussion at all on the article's talk page, so your attempt to reduce the article to a previous, less fully referenced, version is not justified. If you think that it's necessary, take your arguments to the talk page, make a case for it there., and get a consensus. Otherwise, please do not do this again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, genuinely out of curiosity, are you saying that the version that Ser Amantio reverted to is of lesser quality? Or are you reverting simply because you feel a reversion of this sort in the middle of an AFD is inappropriate? (let's ignore for the moment the removal of the AFD notice, which I suspect was unintentional). Primefac (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that the removal of the AfD notice was an oversight. I think that Ser Amantio (who, BTW, I believe is a good admin, and for whom I !voted at RfA, so I have no onus against them) really shouldn't be fooling around to that extent with an article which is at AfD after Arbcom passed on deleting it per the subject's request. (In fact, I was surprised that they brought it here at all after that.) But the real problem is as you say: the version they reverted to is not as good as the current version. By reverting, Ser Amantio removed a full paragraph of information, a photograph, and four sources. Improving an article during AfD is never a problem, it happens all the time, but reducing its quality is just not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken:, et al: My apologies - and oversight is right. Chalk it up to being rusty with the AFD process - I don't do it often. (Haven't done it in two or three years, that I can remember.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely not notable except for one event WP:1E. And all I can see are passing mention references. Not to mention, the doxxing-like tone that was in the article. His tribe journey is irrelevant.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above editor is now edit warring to remove the same material that Ser Amantio deleted on the specious grounds that it is a BLP violation, which it is not. Beyond My Ken (talk)

I am editwarring? You are the one who has reverted two editors. Yes. It is a BLP per WP:NPF and WP:BLP. Irrelevant material.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note that the only thing that this person is notable for is this nato article. This is clearly a WP:BLP1E.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYBLP: and I'm rather surprised to see Drmies at the forefront of an unsupported edit war! SS, you're demonstrating an extremely superficial reading of BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. To qualify for outright removal it must be contentious, unsourced or poorly sourced, and only then does your assertion that it doesn't matter whether its positive or negative kick in. The photograph, for instance, was uploaded by the subject themselves.
You're also misunderstanding BLP1E. It's not the NATO article they're notable for, but their photojournalism in a region where Western-style photojournalism is frankly fucking dangerous. That was the topic of the interview, and their career is not "one event". ——Serial^# 10:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serial Number 54129, we're not dealing with some whiny Western influencer who wants something added or removed, or with a politician's staff trying to whitewash an article. In addition, I was hardly "at the forefront" of it, as the history shows. The fact that their photojournalism is "frankly fucking dangerous" is, I believe precisely why they made the request. That I don't fully understand it, not having all the information, is not so relevant. Also, I don't understand "material released by the subject themself cannot be controversial". First of all, why not? Second, why can't material become controversial, because something else changes--a government, a chief of police, a family, a law? Drmies (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drmies; I disagree that that applies to anything in the article. The photograph, for instance: if it was controverial, or dangerous, why is it still up? (And that's not the same as asking why it still has its license, as that cannot be revoked) They could still remove it from one of the biggest image depositories available, and haven't. Anyway, I'm not arguing about it, it's merely bizarre, verging on the grotesque, that a report of someone graduating MA from a (phenonomally) minor American college can possibly be construed as controversial. ——Serial^# 13:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since material released by the subject themself cannot be controversial, I have restored first-hand data: the image, which they uploaded to Flickr (as "self portrait, December 2008"); material which quotes his NATO interview; and an academic text from a reputable publisher who also quotes them verbatim. I have not restored the third party discursive material from The Sentinel, admittedly a pretty local paper, although you'd have a hard time arguing that France24 is unrelaible. ——Serial^# 11:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per this edit, the user is claiming that merely having an article about himself makes him a target, as insurgents (apparently) consider anyone who has a Wikipedia article to be "a big deal." I am not weighing in on the validity of that argument, merely posting it here for clarification (since the subject seems reluctant to elaborate). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is marginal at best, and the request by the BLP subject should be taken into account. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are also articles about this person on Arabic Wikipedia and Persian Wikipedia as well. I realize that they are beyond the scope of this discussion, but I'm curious to know whether deletions requests for them have been made as well. If it has been verified (by WP:OTRS) that the subject of the article is requesting that ~~the~~this article be deleted because he is concerned about his safety or about the safety of his family, then I think that is something that should be given serious consideration.
I don't think that we as a community can tell someone not to worry about something or not to be afraid if they really feel that way. However, I also don't think that we as a community should start accepting watered-down versions of articles and removing otherwise policy and guideline compliant content just because the subjects of articles prefer one version over another. If one particular version of an article might place the subject at risk because anyone who has a Wikipedia article written about them might be seen as a "big deal" (thus making them or their family a target), then any version of the article would seem to pose the same risk, wouldn't it?
Displaying the version the subject prefers seems quite contrary to WP:OWN as well as some other generally accepted things about Wikipedia. The "old" version will still be visible unless it's WP:SUPPRESSed from the page's history and it could be re-added or similar new content could be added in good faith in the future by those trying to improve the article. Will the same thing be allowed again if the subject disagrees with future changes made to the article? Will the page be WP:GOLD protected in perpetuity to stop anyone outside of an administrator from editing it? If either of these things is to be the case, then it what's the point of having an article to begin with?
I'm not trying to downplay the concerns of the subject, but I don't think there's lots of room here for the community to try and maneuver. If the community wants to acknowledge the subject's concerns by deleting the article, then that's what it should do. All content about the subject should be deleted (including any images, and articles on other language Wikipedias if at all possible) because everything together would seem to still be placing the subject at risk. The subject's name should also probably be WP:SALTed so that the page cannot be recreated without at least some kind of discussion as to whether the situation has changed.
Perhaps some of the things I've posted seem a bit extreme, but I think that if the community really wants to err on the side of caution here, then there should be no middle ground:~~and the article should be deleted. E~~ either the article needs to be deleted or it needs to adhere to relevant policies and guidelines as determined by consensus, even if that's not the version of the article that the subject prefers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post copyedited and clarified a bit by Marchjuly. Additions are underlined, while removals are stricken through. — 21:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)][reply]
Keep. I see consensus that the subject meets notability criteria so the discussion is whether or not a subject can have content about them removed. Relevant policy says that a sufficiently notable individual may not. Claims of personal safety are not to be taken lightly but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. If it's in an article it should be referenced, which means it already exists. Removal from Wikipedia does not remove the source. Therefore the safety concerns aren't really relevent. Ifnord (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea von Habsburg[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. Unlike her parents and some of her siblings, the subject appears to be a private individual and this article amounts to nothing more than a genealogical entry. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a geneological database. Well, it is not supposed to be. That guideline would cause us to remove several articles we have on members of royal families, but there is no reason to have this article on a private person who is a member of a royal family that has not held power for over a century. Of course I also think we should delete the article on JFK's non-notable grandson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the exception of name checks in directories of noble families I can't find anything in the first few pages of GHits that looks like a source we could use. Guy (help!) 20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability made. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources mentioning her, not even in gossip magazines. She doesn't appear to be a public figure. DrKay (talk) 10:33, 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ishan Pandita[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Also propose WP:SALT ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:FOOTYN. Drat8sub (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - still not notable Spiderone 10:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Seide[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The same issue remains that led to deletion in last year's deletion discussion: lack of notability, i.e., lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cited sources are self-published, interviews, or mentions. I couldn't find requisite coverage for notability in searches. Biogeographist (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this helpful summation,Biogeographist and for the mentoring. The recent feature on his work in The Sun magazine^[1], coverage on NBC-TV^[2] and the award from the American Correctional Association and coverage of his work in prisons^[3] seemed to establish considerable significance/notability, but then again that may not be the case. After Heartglow30797 had suggested missing CSD A7 Guidelines, I made an edit to the "Organization" section to state what seemed clear from The Sun profile: "Seide is a leading authority on the practice of Council...," rather than beginning the section with, simply, "Seide directs Center for Council." My intention was to add that language to address CSD A7, but I may have failed to follow proper protocol, as I see that edit was deleted. Perhaps it should have stated that he is "considered an authority on innovative rehabilitative programs in California prisons"? Was unclear if that assertion of significance/noteworthiness did or did not require support from a reliable source/reference. I regret my stumble... and I apologize for the rookie editor error. Trying to parse the distinction between significance and notability. Thanks very much for your patience and help as I learn the ropes! Rosebenny (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Power of Story". The Sun Magazine. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
^ "Police officers learn meditation to tackle job tension". NBCNews.com. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
^ "Council in Session". CorrectionsToday. Retrieved 2020-05-22.

Delete and salt. Adequate sources not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: The piece in The Sun is an interview, considered a non-independent primary source. The other two sources are mentions, not sufficient to establish notability. Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia and is based on available sources; it doesn't refer to the content of the article. Seide hasn't gained notability since the last deletion discussion a year ago. Biogeographist (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 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. Barring SPA and/or sockpuppets' arguments per policy, there is a consensus to delete. qedk (t 愛 c) 06:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Di Bari[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG there is no “significant coverage” in “reliable sources” that are “independent” of the topic. Scholarly publications are minimal and largely uncited no WP:PROF. Biancalu123 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Biancalu123 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have referenced or withdrawn all the [citation needed] and clarified the [clarification needed] as per Biancalu123 request. Thanks Biancalu123 for advising, all the citations needed were 10-15 old links that have become dead in the meanwhile. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:AD18:2097:52B:583E (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:AD18:2097:52B:583E (talk)

Comment The article does not meet any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. First, the person doesn’t hold any prestigious appointment. He did not receive any Master or a Ph.D. The article claimed he was a Professor but I wasn’t able to find any evidence of his academic position. So I assumed he was an adjunct. My edit was corrected in contract professor by the same un-registered IP above. So, it is confirmed, he was a non-faculty and temporary staff in Italy a decade ago. Second, there are no scholarly publications. Just a few professional publications (published between 2000-2006) by a non-scholar Italian publisher. His work is not cited. Neither in Italian nor in English. The only information that I am able to verify is that he works as a keynote speaker. He is a “futurologist” and works with different agencies. Here is [one]. The tone, the register of the article and the unsigned comment above make me think this article is s a self-biography with promotional intent. Biancalu123 (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only likely source of notability I see is WP:NAUTHOR. That would generally require multiple book reviews in independent reliable sources, which aren't currently in the article. Some reviews may also be published in Italian, which makes searching trickier. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* I agree with Russ Woodroofe that the source of notability is WP:NAUTHOR. I also agree with Biancalu123 that the article does not meet enough WP:NACADEMIC criteria, although the academic activity is verifiable through the Guides of the University itself, under [4] and [5]. There is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the article, it has a neutral point of view, it’s never self promotional, it's factual, there is verifiable evidence from suitable sources. I have checked and the contentious items pointed out by Biancalu123 have been all deleted or properly sourced. All this considered, I recommend to keep the page. I found remarkable the achievements at UNESCO and EXPO 2015. Innovamus (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)— Innovamus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. WP:TNT surely applies to this WP:PROMOTIONAL article, which appears from its edit history to be mostly autobiography. I also don't see notability: his books don't seem to have the reviews for WP:NAUTHOR, and there are no other signs of it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment * Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have taken some time and sourced the article. I have also canceled what was unsourced including his entire section "Academic Carrier", just in case. And no, Biancalu123 I’m not him —I wish I was :) I’ve just seen one of his lectures, in Jacksonville, and liked him. You, on the other hand, honestly seem to just hold grudges, considering that 28 out of 31 of your total edits are aimed to compulsively chase him around wikipedia. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:7538:24F:1D0F:7EB8 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:TALKNO. Second, Russ Woodroofe wrote it "appears from its edit history to be mostly autobiography". Biancalu123

Comment WP:PROMOTIONAL remains. For instance “Di Bari is internationally regarded as a creative innovator”. Also, WP:NOTE as it is sourced with links to his own YouTube account Biancalu123
Comment You are right Biancalu123, that was a primary source, thank you for noticing. It was 1 out of 86 sources and it has been undisputed for 10 years, I didn't notice it, I've just canceled it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB20:58B0:847:C51B:5C9:3952 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets GNG. Also, since the proposal of deletion, a lot of reliable independent sources have been added. I’ve searched his name in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22vito+di+bari%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10 Although Google Scholar on occasion overcounts citations, I searched his publications one-by-one and found that they were cited 125 times, including citations from a paper in the Journal of Emerging Technology Kassel, Germany; ISTAT, the Italian National Institute of Statistics; Oxford University; Assiut University in Egypt; Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Venezuela; Queensland University of Technology; Boston’s Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies among others. Most citations are in books, others are in business publications and postgraduate theses. He is not an academic but his books 1999-2009 are published by IlSole24ORE Books, which is a prominent Italian business newspaper (the Italian equivalent of The Financial Times), and thereafter by Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, the biggest publishing company in Italy according to Wikipedia. His work has been quoted by two Nobel Laureates for Economics: Kenneth Arrow and Lawrence Klein https://www.key4biz.it/Analisi-e-Dati-Bibliotech-2006-11-Il-futuro-che-gia-c-e-ma-ancora-non-lo-sappiamo/54547/ Keep. Leal48 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)— Leal48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment that Leal48's account was created about two hours after User:Vito Di Bari, and that their first edit was to blank the user page of the latter. @Leal48: do you have a COI to disclose? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroofe no they all have "seen one of his lectures, in Jacksonville, and liked him. " An admin blocked Innovamus WP:BADSOCK for abusing multiple accounts.Biancalu123 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Innovamus was blocked for 2 weeks for minor abuse. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No COI here, I was the one who deleted/revised the original page creation. I'm just doing the same now as I did then, trying to state the facts with valid sources and reasoning.Leal48 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To summarise: There is no WP:GNG. No multiple book reviews in independent reliable sources for WP:NAUTHOR. Sock puppets and anonymous IPs WP:SOCK. Conflict of interest WP:COI. Unverifiable references such as those from two Nobel laureates WP:NRV. Promotional language WP:SPIP.Biancalu123 (talk) 08:47, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agbioeletric[edit]

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

non-notable topic, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 20:22, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MaximilianMus[edit]

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

this is a non-notable youtuber, and unlikely to pass notability. 136.27.38.4 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources talking about him significantly. SK2242 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the amount of you tube used as a source the statement "Wikipedia is not you tube" comes to mind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his harassment cases. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 30 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) 19:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neehar Raina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable architect. His only claim to fame was that his name was included as one of the people behind a building which won the Aga Khan award, after he protested at his exclusion. Searching for him does not present any better references to indicate notability being met. Jupitus Smart 12:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I failed to find any reliable sources apart from a couple mentioning the inclusion controversy. Seems like an WP:1E, but the coverage wasn't widespread either. Fails WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 10:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we gave too much deference to getting some award somewhere back in 2009. I have to admit that I have problems with giving an credence to an award that dismisses people as "illiterate farmers" period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nothing in the article that shows his notability. Nika2020 (talk) 09:55, 28 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 Mor ve Ötesi. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Şehir (album)[edit]

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

The band has a article here and an article for the album is not justified as there is no evidence it is independently notable. Per WP: Notability (music)/Albums. Also the article is very poorly sourced, with no reliable sources whatsoever. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mor ve Ötesi: The album was mentioned in a number of articles in Turkish, but was barely discussed. Its Turkish article doesn't look notable as well. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:44, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naser Banaqeeb[edit]

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

author of a single self published book, with no real critical reviews (despite the hans source, which looks to possibly be paid) there is no coverage of his work or him. Praxidicae (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 10:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nom identifies how this person is not even remotely close to being a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No sign of notability. Nika2020 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The author is from Hyderabad. Sorry to say but the book is not a self-published book. It is published by Authorspress India, one of the oldest and reputed book publishers from New Delhi, India. The critical reivews of his first novel, Theft of Nizam's Gold, were published in two of the leading, national Urdu Newspapers in India such as The Siasat Daily and the Munsif, oldest newspapers from India. Crritcal review in The Siasat Daily is here, and the Munsif Newspaper is here. A critical review is also published in Hans India, and other other local newspapers such as Telangana Today. Almost all of the local newspapers from Hyderabad, India talked about his novel as NIZAM of Hyderabad is a popular subject in Hyderabad. But, unfortunately, most of these newspapers do not have any online presence. Moreover, only a previous AFD counts for G4. Survived deletion process already. Please, check history. Moreover, the novel is regarded is one of the finest contributions to the literature ever written on the Nizam os Hyderabad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQR (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IQR I have a hard time believing that a publisher with a gmail address is "a reputed book publisher". Also it is self published as per authorpress' own website and I quote: Authors Press is an online self-publishing companysource. Praxidicae (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, it is Authorspress India not Authors Press. The book is not a self published one. Check out Authorspress India here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQR (talk • contribs) 05:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, check it is not a self published book. The book is published by Authors Press India and Authors Press India is not a self-publishing platform. They are publishers. The book is available on their site as well. Please, check out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQR (talk • contribs) 08:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me highlight another piece I said: I have a hard time believing that a publisher with a gmail address is "a reputed book publisher". Also this might be worse than the other Authors Press, given it's pay for publication and doesn't readily identify as such. Praxidicae (talk) 12:23, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Total Picture Seminar[edit]

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

Article says it’s an LLC, but some sources (on Google) and the event’s FB page say it was a two day long seminar in 2009 that happened only once. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. There's brief coverage in Hollywood Reporter and several small/local publications, but nothing in the way of in-depth reliable and independent sources. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 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 procedural close per SD0001. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Everlasting (role-playing game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been to AfD before, with no consensus. As it's been sat in CAT:NN for twelve years, I think it deserves to have its notability established one way or the other. There were good arguments put forward on both sides in last AfD, but I don't think that it quite meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - isn't it uncustomary to re-nominate just six weeks after the last discussion was closed? Newimpartial (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, this seems too soon for a rerun. In the previous AfD, Mazca said, "The game clearly exists somewhere on the borderline of relevant notability guidelines. Participants have discussed what sources are available in some depth, and seem to have reached good-faith disagreement over exactly where the line is drawn. No consensus has been reached over a very long discussion period." I think that six weeks later, it's likely that the same people will participate, with more or less the same result. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the above. This is too soon after a particularly long AFD (it remained active for close to a month) that resulted in a no consensus. I don't see it reaching any different conclusion a month later, and suggest this AFD be procedurally closed for the present time. Rorshacma (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator it's disappointing that the comments thus far have not focused on the notability at all. This article has sat with a notability tag for 12 years. That's ridiculously long - this is not too soon but incredibly late for a consensus to be found. We can do that, if we focus on its notability and encourage participation rather than shutting down the discussion, which clearly still needs to be had. Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the {{notability}} tag on the article as I don't think any article that has survived an AfD should retain that tag. There has already been a long AfD relisted twice which received ample participation, so I don't get what you mean by "shutting down discussion". Suggest a procedural close here. SD0001 (talk) 11:14, 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bowman's Strategy Clock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. It has been to AfD a couple of months ago, but there was limited participation and no consensus. I am really hoping this time we can resolve it either way. Good arguments were put forward last time for keep, but I still think it doesn't quite go over the threshold of notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Not notable and seemingly trivial. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:19, 30 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) b uidhe 14:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Four international beauty pageants[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Leaving aside for a moment the questionable practice of promoting the objectification of women, this article is built on WP:SYN. Some sources list four pageants as the top four, and from that we synthesis the term "big four" and then collate a bunch of information from the individual pageants. This is one step too far in the creep of pageantcruft. Guy (help!) 11:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As it says at the start of the article The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Xinhua News Agency, and global news agencies such as Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse collectively refer to the four major pageants as "Big Four" . There is no SYN here. The last AFD found many reliable sources talking about the "big four". And we are not "promoting the objectification of women" by having articles about beauty pageants, since mostly females watch those things anyway, same with the fashion magazines and shows, and whatnot. Many women are obsessed with physical appearances, unable to leave the house without makeup on, etc. it how their brains work, it not caused by this Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 15:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "it how their brains work"??? This sexist and unsupportable commentary is irrelevant to the discussion. pburka (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m sure with 390 citations you can find reference to the term big four to describe these (still prestigious in this day and age, for some reason) pageants. A simple google search does it. Trillfendi (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Well with an opening like "Leaving aside for a moment the questionable practice of promoting the objectification of women", this sounds to me like an I don't like it nomination. The article is clearly reliably sourced, very speedy keep. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jjj1238, not really, no. We delketed WP:HOTTIE for a reason. Guy (help!) 00:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not WP:HOTTIE. Pageants are not objectifying, they are empowering. Let's stop telling women what they are and aren't allowed to choose to do because they don't fit our definition of what's acceptable of a woman. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sourcing. Per WP:GNG. These pageants does not objectify women more than a footballer is objectified when playing football. If anything these pageants empowers the women competing.BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly KeepIt is not at SYNTH. The article did not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. "A SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." In the article in question, the statements are verifiable from the sources with in line citations and even stated in quotations. Regarding the claim of the nominator that "we synthesis the term big four," the article cites plethora of reliable sources where the term "big four" can be found and various sources talking entirely about big four or simply go to google news search to find more. On the statement of the nominator "then collate a bunch of information from the individual pageants," I would like to point out the following from WP:NOTSYNTH. SYNTH is not ubiquitous: If you consider all instances of reading a table to be SYNTH because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. Objective, straightforward, and basic descriptions of an illustration are not SYNTH. SYNTH is not a rigid rule: never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article." Furthermore, SYNTH is not unnecessary: Wikipedia editors are allowed to use all of this synthesis, since they did not create it but are instead reporting what reliable sources have said. SYNTH refers both to a policy forbidding original research by Wikipedia editors by synthesis, and to such synthesis itself.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As pointed out above, the references use the term "Big Four", so no WP:SYN. The rest of the nomination seems to be WP:IDL --John B123 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Leaving aside for a moment the questionable practice of promoting the objectification of women" makes clear this is a Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT nom, the sources are clearly there and no WP:BEFORE search seems to have been made. GuzzyG (talk) 15:05, 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princeps pastorum[edit]

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

~~Doesn't have sufficient RS coverage to justify notability, consider merge with Pope John XXIII xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)~~ -- self-cross out per withdraw xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 16:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--it isn't suitable for merging into the list article, too much information; also it may be notable; no sign that offline sources have been utilized prior to the nomination.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the burden of proof of notability is on the side of keep. I am open to be convinced. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another way is to see this ngram graph. To check for notability, you need to look for print sources published in the year of the peak. This is considerably more difficult without access to an academic library because it peaked prior to the internet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely common sense and basic general knowledge tell us that it is impossible for a papal encyclical to be issued without attracting significant coverage in independent reliable sources? I have added a few such sources to the article, but have only scratched the surface of those available. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources references added to the article so that the subject clearly passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with any Papal encyclical it is extensively discussed for many years, albeit almost exclusively in the Catholic press, or books by Catholics about Catholicism. It does therefore have a certain ‘in-universe’ quality to it, but I don’t think its notability is in doubt. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per new references added by @Phil Bridger: in these revisions, I believe the current page has demonstrated the GNG with sufficient RS. I hereby Withdraw my delete nomination. Thank you for adding the references. Coming from a background of not super familiar with the Catholics, editors like me can only make assessment on the notability based on what's on the page, therefore I maintain my reason of nomination at the time it was nominated, but as of now I am happy the newly provided references has put the page on a status it deserves. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 16:03, 29 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 merge to Mercy Hospital South. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell and Fern de Greeff Hospice House[edit]

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

Unsourced for a long time, WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing, fails WP:GNG and likely WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge partially to the affliated Mercy Hospital South: https://www.mercy.net/practice/mercy-hospice-south-de-greeff-hospice-house/# Djflem (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mercy Hospital South WP:ATD-M Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanya Bharathi[edit]

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

non notable actress, no meaningful independent reliable coverage. Previously deleted. Fails WP:NACTOR DMySon 10:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Schultz (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. The sources provided are 1. Spotify 2. A review that may be good or may be recycled PR 3. An interview 4. A press release and 5. A review that does not look independent. Mccapra (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources used except some self published websites and press release, social media links. - Ivan hersee (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 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 merge to Washington University in St. Louis. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell International Scholars Academy[edit]

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

academic study abroad program within a single university, It's essentially a web page for the program, and therefore fails both notability and NPOV. The refs are mere notices.

The see alsos, are links to actually notable international fellowship programs, This is not one of them. DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, this program is both a university research network and scholarship program that involves a total of 35 universities. However, I agree with you regarding the excess of "web-page-like" information provided without appropriate references and the links to other distinct fellowship programs. I suggest you take a look at the page version following its approval in Wikipedia:Articles for creation and before the edits by User:Roumiana6 on May 6th. This version has more concise information and independent sources to back it up. I suggest a reversal of these edits to this prior version instead of page deletion. --Doc2129 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it none the less as a programfor scholarships atone particularuniversity only. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate location in Washington University in St. Louis. How many partners a study abroad program has are not significant indicators of notability (most serious study abroad programs have multiple locations) and neither is how many institutions are the hosts (Rhodes Scholarships are "a program for scholarships at one particular university only"). The key metric is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and the only example of that in the article is the St Louis Business Journal piece. The remainder of the references, either before or after the edits disputed above, are either not significant, not reliable, or not independent. There is not enough good coverage for a standalone article and no indication of independent notability. 18:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t think of any other study abroad programmes that are notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't think of" is not a source-based !vote. E.g., SIT Study Abroad, Budapest Semesters in Mathematics, College Year in Athens, Eton Summer Course, Math in Moscow, etc. etc. See also WP:JNN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merge to something within WUSTL. This program fails to demonstrate enough notability to merit its own page. Graywalls (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page needs editing, but some Googling suggests that this is an institution that meets the notability requirement rather than a study abroad program. It seems similar to the University Alliance of the Silk Road hosted by Xi'an Jiaotong University, representing an alliance of universities with substantial research programming that extends beyond a single university. I'm editing in a couple of references to give the editors of this page an example of the types of sources needed to establish the notability needed for a Wikipedia page; I encourage the editors to rely on verifiable sources such as these to furthermore avoid NPOV issues.China is wonderful (talk) 18:32, 28 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 Procedural close. Since nom is a blocked sock, no one is arguing for deletion. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 14:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Historical Breechloading Smallarms Association[edit]

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

does not pass the general notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG, Previously deleted. Numan765 (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive#26 May 2020 -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather subjective to me; please see my comments. What more information would you require than what is there to establish notability? knirirr (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more references whilst waiting for more responses. knirirr (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miri Hanai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is very borderline, hence it sitting in CAT:NN for 12 years. I can't read Japanese, but using Google translate and the Japanese WP article I couldn't find enough to show she meets WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause to allow old material to stand without applying current notability guidelines and for good reason, prior to 2006 we had no notability guidelines at all, and it was not until after 2010 we made it possible to quickly delete totally unsourced articles on living people. There are other factors, like how we used to allow people to create articles without even having an account. I still think we should make all new articles go through the Articles for creation process. We make it too easy to create articles and too difficult to remove them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She has released several works as shown on her Oricon profile (NSFW warning) but none of them have charted on national DVD/Blu-ray charts. lullabying (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:05, 30 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) 19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Shafi[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and coverage is WP:ROUTINE. The reasons given here for keeping the article are not valid reasons! StickyWicket (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Störm (talk) 12:44, 30 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 List of Scooby-Doo media#Direct-to-video specials. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo! and the Spooky Scarecrow[edit]

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

not notable, no significant independent coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Scooby-Doo media. If the notability guidelines are not met, this seems like a reasonable merge target. There are numerous films in the same franchise with similar lack of notability; perhaps those should be merged as well. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Scooby-Doo media#Direct-to-video specials, where it is already listed. Doing some basic searches turns up nothing substantial about this particular special, and there is no sourced content here that actually needs to be merged. Redirecting to the proper spot on the main list would be the most appropriate course of action, in this case. Rorshacma (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -2pou (talk) 17:12, 29 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) 19:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Toledo[edit]

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

This is borderline, but as I couldn't establish notability, and it has been tagged for notability for 12 years, I'm hoping we can come to a conclusion. Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see WP:SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS. Theredproject (talk) 22:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olza S.A.[edit]

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

This is borderline, but as I couldn't establish notability and it has been tagged for notability for 12 years, I hope we can now come to a conclusion. It doesn't appear to have a Polish WP article and there doesn't seem to be the in-depth coverage to meet GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find a self-published book and a few passing mentions about the takeover, but nothing about the company itself unfortunately. Mccapra (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur that the article fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The self-published book mentioned by the nominator is They Stole Our Chocolate Factory, 2001, Lynn B. Schramek, ISBN 9781462817160, published by Xlibris, which is positioned as a self-publisher. No other reliable sources can be found. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:15, 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Railroading Institute[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately I cant find any RIS for this one either. Mccapra (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC) striking !vote[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the essay Wikipedia:ITSAMUSEUM says it. If there's not of online documentation about a significant collection that started in 1957, that's a shame, but would say in the real world that's notable.Djflem (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being that this organization owns locomotive 1225 which is on the National Register of Historic Places, that seems significant and noteworthy to me. n2xjk (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple reliable sources cited Djflem (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Tourist Trains Guidebook (2 ed.). Waukesha, Wisconsin: Kalmbach Books. 2009 [2007]. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-87116-273-1. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
DuFresne, Jim; Finch, Jackie Sheckler (2013) [1988]. Sirois, Kevin (ed.). Michigan Off the Beaten Path®: A Guide to Unique Places. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 84–85. ISBN 978-0-7627-8648-0. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
Taylor, Heather R. (1996). Where the Trains Are!: Wonderful North American Train Attractions for Kids of All Ages. Rocklin, California: Prima Publishing. pp. 165–[3]. ISBN 0-7615-0408-7. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
Drury, George H. (1990). Hayden, Bob (ed.). Guide to Tourist Railroads and Railroad Museums. Waukesha, Wisconsin: Kalmbach Books. p. 132. ISBN 0-89024-103-1. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
Semion, Bill (2009) [1996]. Fun with the Family Michigan: Hundreds of Ideas for Day Trips with the Kids. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 111–112. ISBN 978-0-7627-5069-6. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
"Polar Express is pulling into mid-Michigan". WILX-TV. 2019-08-22. Archived from the original on 2020-05-24. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
"Steam Railroading Institute celebrates 50th anniversary". Argus-Press. 2019-08-18. Archived from the original on 2019-08-18. Retrieved 2020-05-24.

Sources with quotes

Tourist Trains Guidebook (2 ed.). Waukesha, Wisconsin: Kalmbach Books. 2009 [2007]. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-87116-273-1. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
The book notes:
Steam Railroading Institute

The Steam Railroading Institute is all about preserving steam locomotives, and there is always restoration work going on. The institute displays equipment and offers some train rides.
Choices: The seven-acre site includes a roundhouse and turntable. Weekends during the summer, Flagg Coal Company 0-40T no. 75 operates on short trips. Built in 1930, this small tank engine is typical of many industrial locomotives used across the land.
...
Don't miss: Look around the visitor center, which is housed in a renovated freight warehouse that was also a creamery. It now contains exhibits, artifacts, and a model train layout.
DuFresne, Jim; Finch, Jackie Sheckler (2013) [1988]. Sirois, Kevin (ed.). Michigan Off the Beaten Path®: A Guide to Unique Places. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 84–85. ISBN 978-0-7627-8648-0. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
The book notes:
Another reason to make tracks to Owosso is to see the tracks and what steamed across them at the Steam Railroading Institute. The 7-acre museum is packed with railroad memorabilia and exhibits, but its star attraction is Père Marquette No. 1225, the steam locomotive that was built in 1941 and used to develop the train images for the movie Polar Express. Various excursions are offered throughout the year on this famous train with the most popular one staged during the holidays. On weekends from Thanksgiving to late Dec, the Père Marquette No. 1225 makes a special 4-hour North Pole Express trip, stopping at Santa's home, which has been conveniently set up at the Saginaw County Fairgrounds.
Also on-site is a gift shop with engineer caps, shirts, movie posters, and of course, copies of the book Polar Express. The museum (989-725-9464; michigansteamtrain.com) is at 405 S. Washington St. and open from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Fri through Sun. Admission is $6 per person and the North Pole Express trip is $70 for adults and $40 for children.
Taylor, Heather R. (1996). Where the Trains Are!: Wonderful North American Train Attractions for Kids of All Ages. Rocklin, California: Prima Publishing. pp. 165–[4]. ISBN 0-7615-0408-7. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
The book notes:
Michigan State Trust for Railway Preservation

Also known as Project 1225, this nonprofit organization offers visitors a great opportunity to visit a mobile, one-exhibit museum and learn about steam locomotive operations firsthand. With an emphasis on preserving the heritage of steam railroading, Project 1225 involves the running of a 1941 steam locomotive built for thh Pere Marquette Railway. Although it is not an excursion train, locomotive #1225 is operated several times during the summer, and visitors may run the train over a portion of track during the Preservation's "Engineer for an Hour" programs.
Drury, George H. (1990). Hayden, Bob (ed.). Guide to Tourist Railroads and Railroad Museums. Waukesha, Wisconsin: Kalmbach Books. p. 132. ISBN 0-89024-103-1. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
The book notes:
The Michigan State Trust for Railways Preservation operates its restored Pere Marquette steam locomotive several times a year on a former Michigan Central (New York Central) lines between Owosso, Chesaning, and St. Charles. The trains operate in conjunction with local festivals. Several types of excursions are offered: short day-time trips, murder-mystery theater trains, and dinner-plus-mystery trains. Send a stamped self-addressed envelope for schedules and prices.
Semion, Bill (2009) [1996]. Fun with the Family Michigan: Hundreds of Ideas for Day Trips with the Kids. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 111–112. ISBN 978-0-7627-5069-6. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
The book notes:
Steam Railroading Institute and Polar Express Locomotive (all ages)

Besides pieces of old rolling stock like cabooses and other gear in various stages of restoration, the institute is home to the Pere Marquette No. 1225, the huge locomotive that was used in the production of the movie The Polar Express, which is shown in many large-format theaters around the country, especially during the Christmas holidays.
And now, families can ride the North Pole Experss on a three-hour round-trip to the "North Pole." Trips leave weekeneds at 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. from late Nov through mid-Dec. You will believe, and the kids will, too. At other times during the year, there are guided hands-on tours of the shops and coaches.
Each July, what's billed as America's largest celebration of railroading takes place at the institute. The three-day festival features up-close looks at both hulking steam and diesel locomotives, including up to seven steam-powered models, along with huge model railroad layouts, vendors, and more. If someone in the family is a railroad buff, this is the place to be.
"Polar Express is pulling into mid-Michigan". WILX-TV. 2019-08-22. Archived from the original on 2020-05-24. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
The article notes:
The Pere Marquette steam locomotive No.1225 will make it's official appearance the first weekend of October, which will commemorate with the steam railroading institute celebrating 50 years.
MSU students established the Michigan State University Railroad Club in 1969 with a goal of restoring No. 1225.
They worked to restore the actual displayed monument that was on campus since 1957.
Eventually it was relocated to Owosso in 1983 and the group the MSU Railroad Club became the Michigan State Trust for Railway Preservation - which is now known as the Steam Railroading Institute.
"Steam Railroading Institute celebrates 50th anniversary". Argus-Press. 2019-08-18. Archived from the original on 2019-08-18. Retrieved 2020-05-24.
The article notes:
The Steam Railroading Institute’s (SRI) Pere Marquette steam locomotive No. 1225 will make its 2019 debut with a series of events the first weekend of October, which will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Michigan State University Railroad Club.
The Michigan State University Railroad Club was established in 1969 by a group of MSU students with the goal of restoring the 1225 from a displayed monument on the East Lansing campus, since 1957, back to a running locomotive.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Steam Railroading Institute to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 23:17, 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 keep. Mz7 (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mariah Carey live performances[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NTOURS this is a summarisation of many other articles - the concert pages and wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information. Much of the information on this page is covered/duplicated elsewhere or just generally doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion like this. It is also highly unlikely that users would know to search for this page. It reads like a "fan site/page" and doesn't provide context that isn't already provided at the artists' page. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP All of those concert tours are blue linked to their own articles. So the list is a logical grouping helpful for navigation. Dream Focus 17:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment, per WP:INHERIT, articles do not inherit notability from primary topics. The summary information about the tours and performances can be found on the relevant artist, album and song pages. This page amounts to an indiscriminate list and excessive trivia which is of limited appeal. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read something before you link to it to argue your case. This is a valid spinoff topic, and also its a notable list topic since it groups similar articles to link to. The information is not trivia, but valid information about the tours in an easy to sort through layout. It is not indiscriminate, nor does it matter if you consider something to have "limited appeal". Dream Focus 20:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominator's reason for deletion is that this list doesn't meet WP:NTOURS, and? this is a list, the relevant guideline is WP:LISTN ie. are there sources that discuss this group/partial group of entries/ does the list "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes"?, not whether each tour has received significant independent coverage. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst the topics of the list might have received coverage from reliable sources but that is already noted on their individual pages or the artists' bio page. Therefore this renders this list indiscriminate and ultimately doesn't explain why this needs to be in existence when it duplicates information already listed elsewhere. Additionally this level of detail could consitute WP:FANCRUFT → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to google, there seems many wiki pages of list of xx live performances (here.) Lainx (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list meets our criteria for WP:LISTN. The blue links speak to notability. And the list aides our readers in navigation. Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has almost 300 references. It's clearly been assembled with a great deal of care, and is not an indiscriminate list. If this is a compilation of information that's already on other pages, then that's quite a bit of information, which makes this overview helpful to readers. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. List easily meets WP:LISTN. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:57, 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. I am closing this discussion in the context of similar results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Charli XCX live performances and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mariah Carey live performances (2nd nomination), which were held concurrently to this discussion. The participants in these discussions identified WP:LISTN as the relevant notability guideline for list articles, and the editors who offered analyses of this subject in the context of LISTN have agreed that the article should be kept. Mz7 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jennifer Lopez live performances[edit]

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

This is a very niche topic that only hardcore fans would be interested in. It lacks sufficient clarity or context and therefore fails to meet notability according to WP:NTOURS. The artist's page already provides a summarisation of Lopez's live performance history. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of information nor is it a place for fancruft or fansites. It is also highly unlikely that users would know to search for this page. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC) → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per WP:NTOUR
Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article.
RedRiver660 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. I honestly forgot that I created this page. It should be expanded yes, but it shouldn't be deleted. There are plenty of similar articles that exist for other performers, such as List of Justin Bieber live performances, List of Demi Lovato live performances, List of Rihanna live performances and List of Taylor Swift live performances, which is where I was going with this article. I think that it should be redirected now since yeah, the article isn't fully completed, but it could be in the future. — Status (talk · contribs) 00:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominator's reason for deletion is that this list doesn't meet WP:NTOURS, and? this is a list, the relevant guideline is WP:LISTN ie. are there sources that discuss this group/partial group of entries/ does the list "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes"?, not whether each tour has received significant independent coverage. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The title and the subject do not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Status, per the examples he used in his comment. Once expanded, this article can clearly satisfy the Wikipedia criteria. — Tom^(T2ME) 15:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment these articles add nothing that isn't already listed elsewhere. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 17:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well be true, however, they do keep those performance summarized so people don't have to jump from an article to article when they want to check out where/what the artist performed.— Tom^(T2ME) 17:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about discography articles. What is the point of them if the information exists elsewhere? And besides, a lot of the shows mentioned here are not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia because they were one offs. Also note that List of Madonna live performances, a similar article, is a featured list. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominator's claim that this is "a very niche topic that only hardcore fans would be interested in" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People are interested in the history of popular music and live performance. The other claims presented in this discussion seem contradictory: the information isn't important enough to include, but it's also included in other articles for some reason. If it's "highly unlikely that users would know to search for this page," then that's a problem that is solved by the many links to the page. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. List easily meets WP:LISTN. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:57, 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Charli XCX live performances[edit]

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

This is a fan-indulgent collection of largely non-information. Wikipedia is not a fan site or indiscriminate list of information about people. Much of the content here doesn't meet WP:NTOURS notability criteria or lacks sufficient coverage beyond existence that demonstrates widespread appeal. Much of the information is already summarised on the relevant tour, album or artist page. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC) → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The blue links to the articles for the tours the person has been on makes the list notable. Dream Focus 17:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment, per WP:INHERIT, articles do not inherit notability from primary topics. The summary information about the tours and performances can be found on the relevant artist, album and song pages. This page amounts to an indiscriminate list and excessive trivia which is of limited appeal. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its a valid spinoff topic, and also its a notable list topic since it groups similar articles to link to. The information is not trivia, but valid information about the tours in an easy to sort through layout. It is not indiscriminate, nor does it matter if you consider something to have "limited appeal". Dream Focus 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nominator's reason for deletion is that this list doesn't meet WP:NTOURS, and? this is a list, the relevant guideline is WP:LISTN ie. are there sources that discuss this group/partial group of entries/ does the list "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes"?, not whether each tour has received significant independent coverage. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst the topics of the list might have received coverage from reliable sources but that is already noted on their individual pages or the artists' bio page. Therefore this renders this list indiscriminate and ultimately doesn't explain why this needs to be in existence when it duplicates information already listed elsewhere. Additionally this level of detail could consitute WP:FANCRUFT → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the tours are notable. The television appearances should all be removed. Ajf773 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator's comment that this is "fan-indulgent" and "fancruft" sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are contradictory claims that the information isn't important enough to include, but also it's already included on other pages for some reason. The concern about the "level of detail" seems inappropriate for such a short page that's organized in a tidy and efficient way. I do not see the issue here. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. List easily meets WP:LISTN. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:57, 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 redirect to Yamaha Portasound. Must close as redirect since the content has been copied to Yamaha Portasound. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yamaha Portasound keyboards[edit]

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

Given that we don't even have an article for Yamaha Portasound, this list seems to be putting the cart before the horse. No clear claim to WP:LISTN. I wouldn't be opposed to moving the article to draftspace in order to repurpose content into an article about the Portasound, assuming editors believe that that is a notable subject and are willing to work on it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this notice went up, I've transferred the lead of the list article over to a stand-alone article, and expanded it with additional information and references. I would argue that the line of keyboards is notable as they were mass manufactured and hugely popular internationally... the list makes this point clearly, given the timescale that it covers (two decades). Obviously the list needs additional detail and references, but once more detail has been added, this will the only place online where the history of this line has been chronicled (so far as I can tell). You can refer to the similar article List of Casio keyboards to see the potential for expansion and refinement.

The new article Yamaha Portasound (non-list) is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_Portasound --Danimations (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ajf773. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yamaha Portasound: Article easily fails WP:LISTN. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:12, 28 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 as a hoax. Hut 8.5 21:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chinn and Chapman[edit]

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

Completely unsourced orphan with no indication of notability Rob van vee 08:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of this article is not the songwriting partnership of Nicky Chinn and Mike Chapman, though its Infobox is presenting Associated acts of those others. AllyD (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possible CSD: I am finding no evidence of any such band. The names match those of the 70s writing partnership, the second sentence is lifted from the City_Girls article, and the Infobox is presenting bands with no visible association to this particular subject. Lacking all references, this falls under WP:BLP and possibly CSD G2/A11. AllyD (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, and in fact, is this actually a hoax? It's not just that it's unsourced and there are no sources to be found... what are the chances of the two members having exactly the same names as the famous 1970s British glam rock writing/production partnership? And what do their names have to do with the names of two neighborhoods in Miami? Even if the band exists, there is literally nothing from which to construct even the basis of an article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - it meets the CSD criteria. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard3120. This article looks like a hoax. There are two well-known musicians named Nicky Chinn and Mike Chapman, the same names as the members of this band, but they don't appear to be the same people as the band described in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:20, 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! 21:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Falter Place, Nebraska[edit]

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

No sign of an ~~incorporated~~ unincorporated community here, maps show a few windmills. Appears to be an old ranch. –dlthewave ☎ 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, my rationale is that this place appears to fail WP:GEOLAND. It is listed in GNIS as a "populated place", a label that is specifically used for non-legally-recognized places. This means that it would need to meet WP:GNG, and searches of Google Books and newspapers.com did not return any significant coverage. The fact that there are signs of a ranch at the location is meant to be further evidence that there's unlikely to be, or to have ever been, a community here. Editors supporting a "keep" outcome should provide sources to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no deletion rationale has been presented. The article says it's an unincorporated community, so Dlthewave's comment seems like a non-sequitur. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I meant to say that there's no sign of an unincorporated community (or any community, for that matter) at this location. The GNIS source describes it as a "populated place", a designation used for communities that don't have legal recognition. Per WP:GEOLAND, if a place lacks legal recognition, it would need to meet WP:GNG, and Falter Place does not appear to have received the necessary coverage. The only coverage I could find was for a different Falter Place several hundred miles away near Plattsmouth.

Aside from the lack of notability, the GNIS classification is likely in error. "Place" typically refers to a ranch or homestead, which should be marked as a "locale", but we've had to delete dozens of these that were mislabeled as "populated places". See WP:GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion rationale sates "...maps show a few windmills. Appears to be an old ranch." I'm not sure we should be using someone's interpretation of what they see/don't see on a map as a rationale. Ditch ∝ 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ditch Fisher: I explained further in my reply above, do you feel that it meets GNG? –dlthewave ☎ 00:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echinique Place, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardy Place, California, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratt Place, California, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swaim Place, Wyoming, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheeler Place, Arizona, among others. I think we should be using the utter lack of verifiability to the baseless statement "is an unincorporated community" as a rationale. Yes, a map is a fair way to assess if there is a community there! Reywas92^Talk 02:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Maps are interpretive snapshots of a single moment in time. Just because you don't see any houses or roads or whatever merits your interpretation of what does or does not constitute a community, locale, or place of interest does not carry any weight, as far as I am concerned. Ditch ∝ 21:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, I think it is disruptive that you are going around AFDing a bunch of articles based on what you see or don't see on a map. Ditch ∝ 21:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more than a single snapshot in time, have a look at the topo maps since 1949 or any other source and show me a damn community. We work on WP:Verifiability for claims, and this article fails that, with absolutely nothing corroborating it. Were all these examples wrongly decided? If you think this is in fact a notable community, that’s your WP:BURDEN to prove, not mine. Reywas92^Talk 23:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a community, not a notable place. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I have to agree that by the strict measure of Wikipedia's current notability standards for places, this particular place fails in all aspects. Albeit a place that is named, catalogued, and measured on many maps- and recorded as such, officially by the USGS- it just does not produce enough Google search results to be kept. Ditch ∝ 06:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on article improvement and that the original rationale was flawed. Ditch ∝ 07:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above mentioned improvements, including sources, have since been removed by other editors based on the merits of the sources. I do not challenge their assesment. However, I will not now strike my vote as the article is still somewhat improved. (Considering the scarcity of on-line sources regarding this subject, I moved the deemed sub-par sources to a section of the talk page as guidance to future editors.) Ditch ∝ 23:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of their reliability, WP:MILL sources such as Hometown Locator and Roadside Thoughts do not contribute to notability. They compile/mirror data from various sources with no evidence of fact checking. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a Nebraska GNIS guide from 1981 on Google books, and it lists Falter Place as a locale, not an unincorporated community. See [5] (which is from [6]). This makes notability for a stand alone article less likely. dlthewave, is there any way to learn how something got into GNIS? I am not a huge fan of deletion when I know there is knowledge that could be parked somewhere else even if not in its own article. Falter Place was something in the history of humanity, and I want to know what it was now, and I want every human in the future to be able to know if they want to.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! From the GNIS entry, the citation reads U.S. Geological Survey. Geographic Names Phase I data compilation (1976-1981). 31-Dec-1981. Primarily from U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000-scale topographic maps (or 1:25K, Puerto Rico 1:20K) and from U.S. Board on Geographic Names files. In some instances, from 1:62,500 scale or 1:250,000 scale maps. (There's also an "entry date" of 9 March 1979, I'm not sure why these dates differ.)

TopoViewer shows the location on maps dating back to 1967 (1949 basemap):

1949 (1967 ed.) 1:62500 - "Falter Place"
1951 (1951 ed.) 1:62500 - "Falter Place"
1957 (1960 ed.) 1:250000 - "Falter Ranch" (1957 basemap uses the same typeface as other ranches, different typeface from towns such as Purdum and Wood Lake)
1957 (1968 ed.) 1:250000 - "Ranch"
1957 (1978 ed.) 1:250000 - "Ranch"
1959 (1959 ed.) 1:250000 - "Falter Ranch"
1985 (1985 ed.) 1:100000 - (Not shown)
1986 (1986 ed.) 1:24000 - (Not shown)
2011 1:24000 - "Falter Place" (Different typeface from other ranches. These newer maps may be based on GNIS data)
2014 1:24000 - "Falter Place" (This edition shows only towns, not ranches)
2017 1:24000 - (Not shown)

This treatment is fairly consistent with other ranches in the area. I would assume that the name was copied from one of the 1:62500 maps and labelled as a "populated place" at that time, and then copied back to the 2011 edition from the GNIS database; there's no evidence whatsoever of an actual populated place there in 2011 and I'm not sure where else it would have come from. It's common for state-level GNIS directories to list places like this as localities, a trend we've seen with ranches that were confirmed to be mislabeled in the national database. It's understandable that an employee skimming the maps would have difficulty distinguishing between a community and a ranch since the 1:62500 versions don't really make it clear.–dlthewave ☎ 16:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dlthewave, fascinating stuff (at least to me). The 1949 map definitely looks like it says "Falter's Place." Census records for 1920 and 1930 show a John Falter living in the low-population Elsmere census district in 1920 and 1930. Falter was born in Illinois in 1865 of German immigrant parents. He is listed as a farmer, and widowed, living by himself. Can't find a death record, but maybe somewhere he's enjoying this discussion he spawned at least 70 years after his death.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the only way to tell if this is for real is to call up the nearest gas station in Cherry County (there aren't that many of them) and see if they've ever heard about it. Until then, WP:BEFORE has not been met. Change to "delete" if gas station attendant has never heard about it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: Gas station attendants aside, are there any specific WP:BEFORE steps that you would like to see? I did explain the extent of my search above and would be willing to take additional steps within reason. –dlthewave ☎ 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious. If you really want to know something in this area, first call the gas station. There are multiple stations in Thedford along with a hardware store/lumber yard. Second best option is to call the number at the county courthouse and ask who ever answers the phone first. Third best is to call 800-ASK-USPS and ask for the number of the nearest post office (probably the one at 84451 Purdum Rd, Purdum, NE 69157). Then call that. Fourth best is to call the number of the nearest newspaper. For some areas the best way is asking in person because it won't be on the internet. If they ask what it is for, just say you are from Wikipedia. They may or may not take you seriously or sort of giggle a little bit, but whats the blow to your ego compared to the good you are doing? So minor; water off your shoulders.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unreasonable demand, far beyond the requirements of WP:BEFORE or any other commonly-held community expectation. Even if Falter Place is a "real" place name that's used locally, how does this help meet our notability guidelines which are based on published, reliable sources? I've completed a sufficient Before search which didn't turn up anything, and now the he burden of proof is on those making the Keep argument. I have yet to see a single source presented that would actually contribute to GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 01:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unreasonable to call for expert advice for a WP article. I've done it before. Some people will respond well to "I'm from Wikipedia" calls, but others may think it means that you are a crank, because unfortunately that is becoming the collective reputation of Wikipedia editors. You lack expertise to decide this question, but you could gain the expertise by asking people who know. In this case it is people who live and work near Falter Place. The Dunning_Kruger_effect applies here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The showing that this is a ranch and not a populated place is definitive. Calling up a gas station attendant would be original research and a pirmary source. Wikipedia does not do things. You do not do field research to create Wikipedia articles, because you are not a skilled researcher. Calling up gas stations attendants would open us up to covering all sorts of unverified and fringe topics. This is not the way you build an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a blog.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, It would only break the original research rules if you were to exclude published sources on the basis of someone else's expert opinion. In this case the print source(s) are already understood to exist, but the question is whether to discount them anyway. This is where having background knowledge is helpful for avoiding the Dunning_Kruger_effect.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which print sources are you referring to? Quad maps and GNIS have been mentioned here but they don't establish notability; WP:NGEO specifically excludes "various maps and tables". –dlthewave ☎ 18:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are spending more time on the internet arguing about something you don't know, when you could just spend less time by simply improving your background knowledge.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OR is only bad if it makes it's way into the article. Calling a gas station attendant for a lead is perfectly acceptable for research. I have made a phone call myself, and have fathomed from it that the Falter Place is an old intersection of game-trails. Not adding that info to the article or talk page was a decision I made based on the quality of the source. But it does not make the subject any more or less notable Ditch ∝ 02:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a community, not a notable place. --Cornellier (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "I called a gas station/courthouse/lumber yard and asked about it" is original research. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College Swim Team Rankings by College Swimming[edit]

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

1. These tables are taken from collegeswimming.com, they are not simple rankings but are calculated by that website according to their formulae and could be considered copyright. 2. The raw data is user-editable, with teams uploading their own data, so the reliability of the source is questionable. 3. The article violates WP:NOTSTATS because the significance of the rankings is not explained, and neither is it explained how they are calculated. 4. The notability of these rankings is not established, with no indication these rankings meet WP:GNG. --Pontificalibus 05:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment. If this is copyvio it might need to be speedy deleted.~~ Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. userdude 07:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only potential copyvio but also completely fails WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources and might be a hoax. Java Hurricane 05:38, 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vidal[edit]

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

This page was proposed for deletion by another user, which was declined. Bringing this to AfD for a wider discussion. My WP:BEFORE searches are not qualifying an article for the subject; not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Additionally, the article presently has six sources, all of which are primary, which do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original PROD rationale, which was "Not seeing any indication of independent notability that would meet WP:GNG. Sources provided are church publications, which I don't consider independent. Even if they were, it would still fail the part of WP:N that requires worldwide notice by general-audience publications." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time the article subject does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are weak. And I see nothing unique that makes this person notable at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The individual does not and can not get any sources independent of the church, and thus fails WP:GNG.Rollidan (talk) 14:44, 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. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudleytown, Connecticut[edit]

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

Woo-ridden ghost caca. Is this an encyclopedia, or a branch of the Weekly World News? Qwirkle (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This former settlement is eligible to be listed on the basis of "once notable, always notable". There appear to be multiple reliable sources. AfD is not for cleanup. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Also, the book publisher St. Martin's Press is well known and reputable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and trout. Nomination lacks valid rationale. Extensively covered, notable by any measure, article is well-sourced and mostly well-written. CJK09 (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a great article, but the New York Times article clearly saves it. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple points on that. What part of the NYT is this coming from? i.e., is this from the Times proper, or one of the regional section? More importantly, though, I think the poor state of the article over...more than a decade, by the look of it...is a strong hint that blowing it up is called for. Qwirkle (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says section C. Other article appear in the Hartford Courant and places like Wilmington, Delaware which all lend evidence to it passing WP:GEOLAND (see: [7]). I'd strongly support cleaup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we seriously discussing this just because it's supposedly haunted? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are discussing it because the only parts of its story that aren’t completely part of other subjects are the sort of thing best sourced to the Weekly World News. That is seldom a good sign. Qwirkle (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search turned up a NY Times article, at least three [8] [9] [10] articles from the Hartford Courant, and a video produced by the Smithsonian. Unless you're trying to say that Wikipedia shouldn't be covering paranormal topics at all, even when notable (which is an absurd suggestion), I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. CJK09 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m saying that the article is blow-it-up bad, and the subject deserves a sentence of three in other existing articles. Qwirkle (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is rarely useful; as far as I'm concerned, it should only be used when an article is so jumbled and incomprehensibly written that it's a pure waste of time to try and untangle its meaning. Adding onto that, the article clearly passes Wikipedia's notability standards, as I just demonstrated. Therefore it deserves its own article, and should not be deleted. CJK09 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:NOPAGE. Qwirkle (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a section of a guideline with no explanation isn't useful. Which of those criteria make this article problematic, and if it doesn't deserve its own article where should it be mentioned instead? CJK09 (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, since it passes WP:GEOLAND, a page is welcome and expected. This is a content issue and I agree with you it's a content issue, but it's not a deletion issue. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if it wasn't a settlement, which it was, places can be notable for alleged haunted history. Oakshade (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to go all TenPoundHammer on it, but any article so neglected and mis-sourced that it could use the Weekly World News as a citation of fact is, was, and forever shall be a piece of crap. Qwirkle (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I mentioned in my comment above demonstrate that this is not the case. I already committed to rescues of 3 other articles undergoing AfD right now so I don't have time to rewrite this one, but with the high-quality of sourcing available it's just a matter of time. Wikipedia is a work in progress; there is no deadline. CJK09 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. This article did, in fact, use the WWN as a source for nine years and some change, by the look of it. and if you think of that Smithsonian video as “high quality”, well, that speaks volumes. Qwirkle (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not a source, it was listed under "further reading". And the record of the Smithsonian speaks for itself - regardless, even if we cast it aside there are three Hartford Courant articles and a NYTimes article. Are those low quality as well? CJK09 (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opposition to the existence of this article reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Even if was only "sensational" notability, it's still notable. Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple RS.Djflem (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article and delete Qwirkle unless he spends many hours on improving this article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second, orthagonal, similar gesture is for your horse. Qwirkle (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The abuse people get for trying to remove totally unreliable listings of connection, Wikipedia should not send anyone to the WWN ever, that is a sure way to destroy any shred of respectability we have. Also the personal attacks above are totally uncalled for. You cannot delete people, only articles. To suggest otherwise is a horrible and wrong thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on John, say what you will about the Weekly World News, but this National Enquirer article is top notch [11]! Editors can be deleted but I was not being serious. Qwirkle recognized this when he called me a "nightsoil rescuer" in his reply edit comment, and when he complimented my horse. Let's be serious now, the article was in crappy shape, but the subject is notable, so the article will be kept. Let us consume nightsoil together and turn it into sugar!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting topic with enough reliable sources. Station1 (talk) 07:05, 30 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) 19:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Note: I have also deleted Bagzamilleon in accordance with the consensus here as it was a duplicate version of the deleted page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BAGZAMILLEON[edit]

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

Sources are not reliable, blatant self promotion, totally unencyclopedic. Ibn Daud (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 04:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 04:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 04:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Admin and others please note a duplicate of this Bagzamilleon is also present and needs to be removed if the consensus turns to be delete ~Amkgp ✉ 04:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is G11 material. Java Hurricane 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both BAGZAMILLEON and Bagzamilleon. The nominator used the term "unencylopedic" and that is indeed the case. Both attempts at the article are nothing but re-writes of the rapper's autobiography and nothing about his life is notable, except maybe an arrest that may have been reported briefly in a local newspaper (the link is dead). Not even close to meeting the requirements for musician notability, and all that can be found are his own uploads to the usual promotional and streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage, non notable musical artist. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon 08:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 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. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After reviewing the article and previous AfD discussions, which have been inconclusive, I'd like to propose that we delete this article, or merge content into the already existing articles Social media in the 2020 United States presidential election and Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election where appropriate, as well as pages like Ted Cruz–Zodiac Killer meme. I believe WP:INHERITWEB applies here: A Facebook group about Bernie Sanders is not notable just because Bernie Sanders is. The article itself largely consists of references to it being made in passing by journalists or other internet personalities, and statistics on its membership. Per WP:INHERENTWEB, just because this meme page exists does not make it notable. Ted Cruz–Zodiac Killer meme can be arguably notable because it became a fairly wide-spread joke, I argue that a relatively obscure Facebook group does not rise to the same-standard.

The few more relevant facts, like it's popularization of the Ted Cruz-Zodiac Killer meme can be mentioned on that page, and the arguments about the rise of memes in politics apply more broadly and can be discussed along with the rest of the social media issues in an election at Social media in the 2020 United States presidential election and Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election. ThirdDolphin (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ThirdDolphin (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ThirdDolphin (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This "relatively obscure Facebook group" has been covered in full articles (not passing mentions) on Inverse.com (Facebook's Bernie Sanders' Dank Memes Stash Is Eating Itself Right Now), the Washington Post (How Bernie Sanders became the lord of ‘dank memes’) and Motherboard (Can Bernie Sanders’ Dank Meme Stash Swing the Election?), among others. There is coverage in reliable sources that discusses the topic directly and in detail; therefore it is notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs. This group clearly passes GNG. Nomination just seems to be different shades of IDONTLIKEIT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought this was some kind of vandalism when I read the title but this is actually legit and passes GNG. SK2242 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Toughpigs found reliable sources that give significant coverage to this. Dream Focus 02:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs. userdude 10:29, 28 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) 19:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1892 South Bend High School football team[edit]

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

This article concerns a high school American football team. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASON. Moreover, we discourage articles about high school seasons, and while an exception might be appropriate in an extraordinary case, this is not such a case. Finally, per WP:NOTINHERITED, playing a game against Notre Dame (a program that was in its infancy in 1892) is not a basis for notability. Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to 1892 Notre Dame football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the one newspaper source discussing the ND game to the 1892 Notre Dame article. What other substantive content is it that you believe should be merged? The sentence about games played by South Bend HS against Euglossian and Cleosophic? The sentence about proposed games between South Bend HS and "South End", LaPorte HS, and Goshen HS that may or may not have ever occurred? The sentence about a photograph of the South Bend HS team that has not been found? These details have no relevance to the 1892 Notre Dame article. Cbl62 (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I figure some of that could be weaved into a section detailing the Notre Dame vs. Sound Bend HS game. Perhaps, none of it is relevant to 1892 Notre Dame football team. But I certainly agree on the main point that this article should be deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete "This team may have played games" is a frighteningly poor season article, even by historical standards. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I question justificaiton to split the article on any high school football team from the article on the school itself. Doubly so for splitting out the article on the team in a specific season. We have struggled enough to have well sourced articles on high schools, splitting out sourceable content is the last thing we need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Personally, I have no problem with this article's deletion. It's not very notable, and I could only find one game, so the article is lacking in content as well. Murphanian777 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Murphanian777[reply]
Delete Not even a college team. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there room for an article like high schools who played against colleges in gridiron football games a long time ago ?? Might want to wordsmith the title, but THAT article might e of interest and noteworthy, rather than this and the one being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1893 De La Salle Institute football team??--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:40, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DAVIX[edit]

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

This doesn't meet any part of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Boleyn there’s nothing to suggest notability with this topic. Tangential, but after 12 years on this site the relevant WikiProject hasn’t even assigned it a rating. Mccapra (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with both statements above. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:34, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fugitive Projects[edit]

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

It exists, but I can't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that a mix of local press coverage and festival programmes isn’t sufficient to show notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 30 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) 00:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jyothi Rana[edit]

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

There is no sourced content on this page and additionally, all the sources are unreliable (IMDb, gomolo, etc.) There is no credibility for this actress and she is no notable in any manner. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few sources about the subject, either under "Joythi Rana" or "Joyti Rana", including non-English sources. It would be prudent of me to look into the English sources, at least, before I vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. per nominator and above. No indication of passing WP:ACTOR Electiondata (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I am basing my vote mainly on WP:NACTOR at the moment, although there is some coverage in reputable English sources, if not a whole lot (for example, this and this). I would certainly like to hear other editors' thoughts on the non-English sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:14, 29 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. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workato[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous instance was deleted in November 2018; the present article was drafted by a declared connected contributor and moved into mainspace on their 11th edit. I can't compare the previous article instance but the previous AfD discussion also noted funding text references, which are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Aside from the funding coverage, the article lists industry awards and inclusion in analyst vendor reports. These last may be a closer call in terms of WP:NCORP, though a reporting analyst would be expected to cover the vendors in the particular area and I don't think inclusion automatically implies notability here. Searches also find a book paragraph about the tool. Overall, this is clearly a company going about its business. I'm bringing it to AfD to see whether the November 2018 AfD decision should be overturned; my own view is that there is not enough to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2018-11 ✗ delete

Logs: 2018-11 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Although most of the sources used in the article are just fundraising news, there are some other independent coverage available online such as TechCrunch, Clickz, People and Computers, Diginomica. - Ivan hersee (talk) 11:51, 24 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. Editor above points to three references in particular but they also fail. This TechCrunch reference is based on company PR such as this blog post and this company announcement dated the same day, fails WP:ORGIND. Clickz, This from ClickZ is based on a company announcement and even says it in the second sentence, also fails ORGIND. This from People and Computers is based on a company announcement from one of their partners and says so in the first sentence, fails ORGIND. Finally, this from Diginomica is a writeup of the latest platform update but all of the information is provided by the company and peppered with quotations from an executive, also fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The only "Independent Content" is the "My take" section is 4 sentences and says nothing about the company. Topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 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. The consensus (just) is that the article subject isn't notable, but I wouldn't have any issue with someone trying again in a few months with a Draft article, if they can find some more reliable and more extensive sources Nick (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LX Xander[edit]

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

paid for spam about a non-notable musician sourced entirely to fake black hat SEO news sites. Praxidicae (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praxidicae.

Page is definitely being used as paid promotion. Selective information is suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.207.236.95 (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is also fair to assume https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/5.198.8.143 is Alex Larkman himself. See how he changes the grammar and tone of his writing when he is switching to his 'Sarah' persona.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/955086012

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/956682692 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.207.236.95 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The Source is a decent source for hip-hop, but that's probably not enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Source and ThisIs50 are sources for hip hop. Also noted, the musician charted on Billboard. Sweetteaplz (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User has been blocked for sockpuppetry and COI. -- Jack Frost (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few reliable sources about him outside The Source and ThisIs50: Influencer, Latestly and Vents. The article needs some clean-up, but it's good enough to pass WP:PRODUCER. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig none of those sources are reliable, in fact vents has long since been a different site than it originally was and is now operated by black hat SEO that do pay for publishing. Lastestly is laughably bad annd the influencerupdate...well that should be blacklisted. Praxidicae (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Gosling[edit]

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

Is this person sufficiently notable? Her tv career seems to consist solely of starring in a show that hasn't been on tv in over 20 years. Alligators1974 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Alligators1974 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator seems to think that older shows have less weight than current shows. This is not the case. She starred on a show. The article needs improvement, but it doesn't matter whether a show was made 60 years ago 20 years ago, 10 seconds ago, or next week. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she meets WP:ENT #1: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She was in half the episodes of Chandler and Co (and high in billing) plus her role in Next of Kin. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:ENT and remind nominator that age of the TV series is irrelevant. PamD 09:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the aticle lacks multiple, reliable, in-depth, 3rd party secondary sources needed to pass GNG. IMDb is not reliable and one source is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Arguably, the first criterion of WP:NACTOR is made out (although the two TV series themselves don't appear to be overly notable), but I haven't been able to find any sourcing that would satisfy WP:GNG. If more sources can be found, I will update my vote. For the moment, though, the article doesn't quite cross over into "Keep territory", for me. (In regard to the nomination itself, the fact that the subject's last role was more than 20 years ago is not relevant, but the question of whether she is "sufficiently notable" or not is certainly appropriate for an AfD.) Dflaw4 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - terrible article, which fails even to say her early roles were playing teenagers. But 3rd-listed actor in a 3-series BBC sitcom with 1.5 big stars, easily passes WP:ENT #1. Inexperienced nom? Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 28 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 22:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MuuMuse[edit]

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

Not notable as an organisation, website, or blog per WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (web). MuuMuse also can't inherit notability just because the author has written for other notable blogs/sites. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 01:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only references I could find in RS (besides NYT mention cited in article) are embedded tweets by the author, who has the Twitter handle @MuuMuse. userdude 01:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the org. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 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. czar 22:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gisborne Youth Concert Band[edit]

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

A non notable youth wind band. Unsourced with no evidence of notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article on a youth musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Very surprising that it hasn't been nuked ages ago. Schwede 66 05:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the band. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:00, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Valley Youth Orchestras[edit]

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

A non notable community youth orchestra Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youth orchestra.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 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 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photographers/Aspen[edit]

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

A non notable photography agency with zero sourcing. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notable coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Non-notable company. Bluedude588 (talk) 02:43, 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 redirect to Kull of Atlantis. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thurian Age[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article previously deleted for lack of third party sources, which means it cannot meet the general notability guideline. Then re-created, and all the same in-universe primary sourced material re-added, and still no third party sources. Shaking my head here, and I can see the absurd humor in all of this, no malice taken or intended. There's nothing here that you can write outside of what's sourced to the author, his estate, and other affiliated / licensed sources. And no significant coverage that could provide an out of universe context, to meet the standards of WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kull of Atlantis - The article, as it currently exists, cannot stand - its entirely made up of primary sourced plot information. Searching for secondary sources turns up some results, but none of it is really in-depth enough about the fictional period to develop an independent article. Most of it is merely mentions that the Kull stories took place during this made-up epoch. There was one promising looking article called "Theosophy and the Thurian Age", but that does not actually appear to be about the fictional age much at all. Its actually talking about the influences of Theosophy on all of Howard's work, not just the Kull stories, and the title was seemingly chosen more for catchiness rather than because it went in depth at all about the Thurian Age. All of that said, however, the term would still be reasonable enough as a search term that redirecting it to the main article on Kull would make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kull of Atlantis per Rorshacma. A viable search term but not one that is notable enough for its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redrect if the target article can sport at least one reference to the topic. Delete if not. But I'd really prefer this to be soft deleted if possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kull of Atlantis This is a valid search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scouts-in-Exteris[edit]

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

No hint whatsoever that this is a notable organization by our standards; it was probably written when existence equaled notability. The sourcing is primary, and some of the language ("who kept the Scouting spirit alive despite oppression") is totally not neutral. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable, lack secondary sources, and/or are promotional:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks significant secondary coverage. I was in scouting for 10 years, vaguely involved for a few years before while my father was a Weblows leader, and have other connections, and I have to say we need to focus scouting articles a little more. Not every possible topic or thought is worth having a seperate article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Waffle King[edit]

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

A non notable restaurant chain. WP:BEFORE shows no secondary coverage Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It fails WP:GNG and lack reliable secondary sources and also couldn't obtain much information about the subject in Google search index. Abishe (talk) 20:41, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Derickson[edit]

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

This article fails Wikipedia's notability criteria for politicians. The population of Chester, Illinois is less than 100,000. His tenure, while it sounds productive, ultimately does not have any sort of unusual event that would make him more important than any other local politician. There is nothing else in an online search that indicates general notability guidelines are met indpendent of the bulk of the article covering his time as Mayor. Also, the article heavily borrows from Tips from the Top: Advice for a Young Person from 125 of America's Most Successful People in violation of copyrights.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:12, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The content seems to have written with the intention of WP:PROMO and lack reliable secondary sources. Abishe (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chester IL (pop. 8K) is nowhere near large enough to hand an automatic presumption of notability to its mayors in the absence of a properly demonstrated pass of WP:NPOL #2 — but this article is neither substantive nor well-sourced enough to get him over NPOL #2. The content is almost entirely unsourced, in fact: there are just three footnotes in the entire article, of which two are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that counts as a genuinely reliable source is a book (admittedly a very famous book) being cited only to support a statement that Frank Derickson was mentioned in it — but being mentioned in a book, without being the subject of any significant content in that book, is not a notability clincher in and of itself if it's the best source you can come up with. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chester has under 10,000 people. This is an order of magnitude smaller than we might even start to consider it being a place that would make the mayor default notable. This article has existed for 13 years. We need better controlls on article creation. It is way too much easier to create than to remove an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:15, 28 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 Dragonlance#Fictional history. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cataclysm (Dragonlance)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is sourced entirely to the authors and their licensees. No third party coverage. Nothing that could provide neutral, unaffiliated, real-world context. Cannot be re-written to comply with WP:NOTPLOT or WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. userdude 01:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Dragonlance#Fictional_history - Completely in-universe plot information, using only primary sources. Searching for additional sources brings up a few mentions here and there in sources talking about the Dragonlance setting's history, but nothing even close to being in-depth enough to support any kind of article. It could potentially also be used as a Redirect to Dragonlance#Fictional history, where it is already mentioned, but there is no sourced content here worth merging anywhere. I am fine with either option, based on the rest of the consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor plot point in a game's lore, that lacks any kind of notability. I am not a fan of exceedingly generic terms using disambiguations to distinguish themselves, clogging disambiguation pages with more cruft to filter through._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not likely to be a searchable term, concept fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and judiciously trim to Dragonlance. The content of the article under consideration here is part of the 'canon' of Dragonlance so it should be present there, albeit in a reduced scope. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragonlance#Fictional history as per above per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragonlance#Fictional history, fails WP:GNG, as it is sourced to only primary sources, and WP:PLOT as it is written from an entirely in-universe perspective. Quite frankly, there is nothing here worth merging as the main article already describes this event with due importance, merging anything would just make it worse. Just because something is "canon" does not mean we have to talk about it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:29, 30 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] Kay, Zara (2020-05-22). "Is there someone who knows about Wikipedia pages? Edits or has written it before. Can you DM me?". @zarakayk. Retrieved 2020-05-24.

[2] News.com.au Ex-Muslim activist says renouncing Islam more difficult for women, invited constant sexual harassment

[3] The Australian Women pay heavy price for ditching Islam

[4] Daily Star (United Kingdom) Former Muslim reveals she lives in fear of her life and has been called a ‘sl*t’

[5] La Nación Polémica en las redes: #HijabDay versus #NoHijabDay

[6] The Times of India Saudi Arabia girl held in Bangkok, fears death if repatriated

[7] "The Power of Story". The Sun Magazine. Retrieved 2020-05-22.

[8] "Police officers learn meditation to tackle job tension". NBCNews.com. Retrieved 2020-05-22.

[9] "Council in Session". CorrectionsToday. Retrieved 2020-05-22.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]