Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 May	31 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. czar 05:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Redmann[edit]

(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 have looked into it and can find mentions, and roles, but not enough to get over the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress. Back in 2005 when this article was created Wikipedia was the wild west and had no notability guidelines. We need to start imposing them on our content. That it has taken 14 years from the creation of notability guidelines to do so is distressing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I agree with the nominator—this is certainly a borderline case. The subject has had two roles that would meet WP:NACTOR—in Gilmore Girls and in Double Teamed, the latter of which is a TV movie, but quite a notable one—but the majority of coverage I'm finding is passing mentions. However, I have come across this write-up from "google books", which discusses her in respect of her Gilmore Girls role and mentions her other roles, too. I think more is needed, but at least we have a starting point. I'll keep looking. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:26, 28 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) 23:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable actress. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:08, 5 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 05:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baseer Ali[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNGACTOR. An AfD discussion is a must. Hatchens (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a start he is not an actor he is a television anchor and reality televion contestant who won a notable Indian reality TV series and has hosted a number of series. The article already has references to reliable sources such as The Hindu, Indian Express, First Post India Today and others so deletion is unnecessary as he passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News coverage given to the subject by 7 different major Indian newspapers and sources convinces me of his notability. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:00, 25 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) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an example, These three sources seems to count as qualifying sources for the subject to meet WP:GNG, as reported from Hindustan Times, The Indian Express and The Hindu, which are reliable sources per the patrol guide. --Dps04 (talk) 17:03, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ASC Finance for Business[edit]

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

No claim to notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created by a WP:SPA and subsequently developed by IPs. The references are largely primary, along with routine listings and a quote from the firm's director in a brief Mail on Sunday article. My searches find routine franchise listings and another in-role quote from the director ("Corporate Financial Management") but I am not seeing the coverage required for notability. AllyD (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. No reliable third party sources. Nika2020 (talk) 11:39, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ejdelbaum[edit]

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

Not very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG - BeamAlexander (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to show a reason for a stand-alone article. Nika2020 (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not very many hits (~900) in google search. Most hits are 3rd party sources that are unreliable. Definitely not notable. RedRiver660 (talk) 17:53, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rexel[edit]

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

Article greatly expanded and modified as a violation of the Terms of Use as undisclosed paid editing by multiple users now blocked by administrator MER-C Kim Ashfield, Lc29en, Europealliance and Limeea account for 57.8% of the text . Although apparently copiously sourced, a closer look demonstrates this is pure WP:REFBOMBing. Of the 31 sources, 8 are press releases, another 8 are self-cites, three are stock quotes, three are 404, three are "partner" pages, and two are simple database listings. The remaining 4 are simple, ordinary business transactions and run of the mill. A WP:BEFORE search only finds more ordinary business transactions such as acquisitions, earnings reports, stock price moves, etc. With no significant coverage in independent reliable sources apparent in either the article or in searches, this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as well as violating WP:COI. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references, including two from German-language media. The company is traded on a stock exchange, and its shares are included in the CAC Mid 60 index. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LISTED: There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. Notability has to be established through RS like any other company. The added references are not significant, being also about regular busienss transactions or analysis of Rexel's stock and not about the company itself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

"Fortune Global 500 2009. Rank 490: Rexel S.A." Fortune. 2009. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Russell-Walling, Edward (2013-04-01). "The Banker: Capital markets: Team of the month - Deutsche Bank plugs Rexel into the markets". The Banker. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
"Company Profile: Rexel S.A. SWOT Analysis". MarketLine. 2019-12-03. pp. 1–8.
Kreijger, Gilbert (2007-12-20). Cowell, David (ed.). "Rexel officially launches $4.45 bln Hagemeyer bid". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
de Beaupuy, Francois (2011-01-21). "Rexel Finance Chief Forecasts 2011 Sales Growth Will Accelerate". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
"Rexel Raises $1.3 Billion in I.P.O." The New York Times. Bloomberg News. 2007-04-05. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

Sources with quotes

"Fortune Global 500 2009. Rank 490: Rexel S.A." Fortune. 2009. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Rexel S.A. was ranked 490 on the Fortune Global 500 in 2009.
Russell-Walling, Edward (2013-04-01). "The Banker: Capital markets: Team of the month - Deutsche Bank plugs Rexel into the markets". The Banker. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
A group of private equity investors has fizzed up liquidity in the shares of Rexel, the French electrical parts distributor, by means of two impressively large accelerated bookbuilds. Deutsche Bank was bookrunner to both.
Rexel, with sales of more than EU13bn and a presence in 37 countries, is the world's biggest supplier of electrical products to electricians, contractors and the wholesale and retail trade. In its lifetime, it has been through more different types of ownership than most. It was established via the merger of four companies in 1967 and listed on Paris's Second Marche in 1983. A majority stake was bought by Pinault Printemps Redoute (PPR), the French retail conglomerate, in 1990. Fifteen years later, as PPR refocused on its luxury brands, it was the subject of a leveraged buyout.
Its new owner was a consortium including Clayton, Dubilier & Rice (CD&R), Eurazeo and Merrill Lynch Private Equity, via their joint investment vehicle, Ray Investment. They paid EU1.9bn for PPR's 73.5% stake, bought out minority shareholders for another EU690m and took on EU1.1bn of the company's debt.
"Company Profile: Rexel S.A. SWOT Analysis". MarketLine. 2019-12-03. pp. 1–8.
The article notes in the "Company Overview" section:
Rexel S.A. (Rexel or 'the company') is involved in the distribution of low and ultra-low voltage electricalproducts to commercial, industrial, and residential end markets. It also offers a wide category of electricalsolutions for construction, maintenance applications, and renovation. Rexel’s product offerings includelighting equipment, installation equipment, security and communication, climate control and tools, conduits and cables, white and brown products. It markets its products under several brands including ABB, General Electric, 3M, Eaton, Atlantic and Legrand. The company caters to several commercial, residential, and industrial markets. Through subsidiaries, the company operates in North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific regions. The company is headquartered in Paris, France.
The report notes in the "SWOT Analysis" section:
Rexel S.A. (Rexel or 'the company') is involved in the distribution of low and ultra-low voltage electricalproducts. The company's strong product portfolio, wide global presence and robust market share, and diversified end markets are the major strengths of the company. Dependence on few suppliers formajority of its business could be areas of concern to the company. Global electrical and electronics market, global online retail market and construction industry in Europe are likely to offer growth opportunities for the company. However, intense competition, volatile prices of raw materials and stringent environmental regulations could have an adverse impact on the company's profitability and market share.
The report notes in the "Dependence on few suppliers for majority" subsection of the "Weakness" section:
The company depends on short term agreements with its suppliers. In order to rationalize its purchasing and strengthen its relationships with a smaller number of manufacturers, Rexel has implemented a policy to reduce the number of its suppliers. In 2018, the company purchases raw materials from its 25 leadingsuppliers, which accounted for more than 50% of its total purchases. Also, more than 74% of its total purchases were from its 200 leading suppliers. In general, the company's distribution business involvesentering into short- and medium-term agreements with suppliers. The renegotiation of these agreementsleads to the suppliers' refusal to renew agreements or insistence to renew on terms that are less favorable to Rexel. In addition, in certain contracts, the contractual provisions requiring the prior consent of the supplier in the event of a change of control gives rise to the supplier terminating such agreements or seeking an amendment on terms less favorable to the company. Therefore, Rexel may face the inability of one or more of its suppliers to meet its contractual obligations due to various reasons, which may impact sales volume realized with the company's customers.
Kreijger, Gilbert (2007-12-20). Cowell, David (ed.). "Rexel officially launches $4.45 bln Hagemeyer bid". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Rexel (RXL.PA), the world’s biggest electrical parts distributor, officially launched its 3.1 billion euro ($4.45 billion) bid for Dutch rival Hagemeyer HAGN.AS on Friday, assisted by privately owned Sonepar.
Rexel, whose bid is worth 4.85 euros per Hagemeyer share including dividends, will sell its German activities to Sonepar, the world’s second-largest distributor, and buy Sonepar’s Swedish business to overcome any anti-trust issues, said a Rexel spokeswoman. It will make a request for approval from the European Commission by January 15.
de Beaupuy, Francois (2011-01-21). "Rexel Finance Chief Forecasts 2011 Sales Growth Will Accelerate". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Rexel SA, the world’s largest distributor of electrical equipment, said organic revenue growth will accelerate in 2011 as demand from manufacturers and mining companies outshines that of builders.
...
The company, which sells switches, lighting, cables and climate control, surveillance and fire-detection systems, yesterday announced the purchase of Nortel Suprimentos Industriais, which had sales of about 110 million euros in 2010, to enter the Brazilian market. It also bought assets in India and China with combined sales of 28 million euros.
"Rexel Raises $1.3 Billion in I.P.O." The New York Times. Bloomberg News. 2007-04-05. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Rexel, the world’s biggest distributor of electrical equipment, raised 1.02 billion euros ($1.36 billion) in an initial public offering intended to cut debt Wednesday. Selling 61.5 million shares at 16.5 euros per landed the offer was at the low end of the spectrum for Rexel, with the business now valued at 4.18 billion euros.

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

Cunard (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rexel S.A. was ranked 490 on the Fortune Global 500 in 2009. The Fortune Global 500 is "an annual ranking of the top 500 corporations worldwide as measured by revenue".
The Banker said in 2013, "Rexel, with sales of more than EU13bn and a presence in 37 countries, is the world's biggest supplier of electrical products to electricians, contractors and the wholesale and retail trade."
Reuters in 2007 called Rexel "the world's biggest electrical parts distributor".
Bloomberg News in 2011 called Rexel "the world's largest distributor of electrical equipment".
Cunard (talk) 08:03, 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, as to all. Note that pursuant to the deletion of these articles, I have also deleted the category and template existing solely to support these articles:

Category:Lists of New York City Ballet repertory by season

Template:New York City Ballet repertory

BD2412 T 01:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York City Ballet 2012 repertory[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. PJvanMill (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for deletion:

Thanks for the heads up, BenKuykendall! PJvanMill (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are five other pages like this for different years, see Category:Lists of New York City Ballet repertory by season. They should probably be included in this deletion discussion. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These are very clear cut case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These are poor quality listings with barely any sources to demonstrate notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Agree with above and nom.WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Alex-h (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, agree with above. Corachow (talk) 20:15, 4 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. Tone 04:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dawatul Islam[edit]

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

Not enough notability to keep as a single article in Wikipedia. Sources are including LinkedIn! Also not found any strong sources to measure its notability. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have added several sources from google books. Hope others find it sufficiently noteworthy now. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mentions won't make the subject notable. Zindagi713 (talk) 05:35, 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. Tone 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Times Spelling Bee[edit]

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

A non notable event. WP:BEFORE shows no substantial coverage about this spelling bee (but some for the NYT version). Some coverage from The Times but obviously not objective as promoters of the competition. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indeed, this fails WP:GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 22:57, 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) 19:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inspell[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Article doesn't establish notability. Fails the 2 items that Boleyn pointed out. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources whatsoever. The sourcing in the article is horrible - Metal Archives, Discogs and Myspace. No comment. I also did a Google search and I found the same stuff as I do when searching for unreliable bands: databases like Metal Archives, Discogs, Rate Your Music, Spirit of Metal (and the semi-reliable Metal Storm), social media pages and other stuff which contain said word but not about the band ("inspell" in this case). Even though they made 3 albums, it seems like they don't attract the attention of notable media. This article has stayed on Wikipedia for far too long (I can't believe it managed to stay here in this state since 2008).GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article lacks reliable sources , not notable Alex-h (talk) 09:55, 3 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 05:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How People Learn[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

Here are reviews and other sources:

Riel, Margaret; Martinez, Michael E. (2001). "'Classic' Review: towards a science of learning. How People Learn: brain, mind, experience and school". Education, Communication & Information. 1 (1). Taylor & Francis: 121–125. doi:10.1080/14636310120048092.
Walters, Janice A. (2001). "Book Reviews: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School,". Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Vol. 13, no. 3. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1207/S15328015TLM1303_11.
Borthwick, Ann (2018-06-23). "How People Learn: An Education Revolution Two Decades Delayed". National Institute for School Leadership (National Center on Education and the Economy). Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Wolfe, Pat (November 1999). "Reviews: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School". Educational Leadership. 57 (3). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Matthews, Dona (2006). "Book Review: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition, edited by John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking". Gifted Children. 1 (1). Purdue University. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Haras, Kathy (Winter 2007). "How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School" (PDF). Pathways. 19 (2). Council of Outdoor Educators of Ontario. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Bowers, Tom (Summer 2004). "The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning/How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School". Journalism & Mass Communication Educator. 59 (2). Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Proquest.
Koziol, Kevin (2008–2009). "Thinking: A Century of Reflection". Journal of Education. Vol. 189, no. 3. SAGE Publishing.
Wells, David G.; McEvoy, Michael; Kundel, Mitchell (Summer 2006). "Learning the Hard Way". CBE: Life Sciences Education. 5 (2). American Society for Cell Biology: 123–125. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-11-0126. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Sylwester, Robert (November 2000). "How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School". Educational Leadership. 58 (3). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: 91.
Clifford, Pat (Summer 2006). "How People Learn". Education Canada. Vol. 46, no. 3. Canadian Education Association. ISSN 0013-1253.

Sources with quotes

Riel, Margaret; Martinez, Michael E. (2001). "'Classic' Review: towards a science of learning. How People Learn: brain, mind, experience and school". Education, Communication & Information. 1 (1). Taylor & Francis: 121–125. doi:10.1080/14636310120048092.
The article notes:
Acknowledging the need for an integrative statement about the science of learning, the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences convened a Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning. This committee, consisting of prominent researchers from di- verse disciplines, spent 2 years tackling two deceptively simple questions: how do people learn, and how should teachers teach? Their answer to these questions takes the form of a book, How People Learn: brain, mind, experience and school.
How People Learn is an important book, which may, in time, become a classic. One of the committee’s accomplishments is that it has created a highly readable synthesis across different elds of study. The authors have transcended the coded vocabulary that so often characterizes insular com- munities of scholars. Periodic lapses in conceptual and structural organization can be attributed to the fact that the book is the product of a committee whose members are from diverse disciplinary homes.
...
How People Learn is an important document. It is a consensus statement of what is known about the nature of learning. Equally important, it is a political statement that much is known about learning and that this knowledge has implications for the way that educational experiences can be organized. We commend How People Learn to everyone who is engaged in the work of education, broadly construed. Fortunately, for most readers, the document is accessible within seconds at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/ 9853.html. The contents of the entire book has been placed on the Internet at the web site of the National Academy Press. We believe that the accessibility of How People Learn, and the power of the ideas it contains, can make the book a conceptual centerpiece for educators. In serving this function, it can establish a real connection between the cultivation of minds and an understanding of the way those minds work.
Walters, Janice A. (2001). "Book Reviews: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School,". Teaching and Learning in Medicine. Vol. 13, no. 3. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1207/S15328015TLM1303_11.
The article notes:
This book evaluates and presents evidence of changes in conceptions of learning that have occurred over the past 30 years, including those processes involved in helping learners reach deep understanding, to determine leads to effective teaching, and those conditions that lead to supportive environments for teaching and learning. The book is divided into four sections. Section 1 includes understanding, preexisting knowledge, and active learning. The authors propose that curricula and textbooks often emphasize memorization of facts rather than the development of understanding. They acknowledge the importance of facts for thinking and problem solving but suggest that evidence from the study of expertise indicates that “usable knowledge” is different from lists of disconnected facts. Experts’ knowledge is organized around important concepts that support their understanding and transfer of knowledge. The authors suggest that memorizing the properties of veins and arteries without acquiring an understanding of why they have particular properties provides students with little basis for problem solving.
...
During my review of this book, I have referred to examples relevant to medical education, which support my own observations and experience with the cognitive processes involved in medical student learning and the impact of both traditional and problem-based learning curriculum on these processes during my 12 years as a medical educator. However, I would shortchange this book if I did not state that its content is applicable to the science of learning across all developmental levels and domains of learning. It is my belief that the book provides all educators with an excellent framework for understanding conceptual changes in the science of learning, including ways in which these changes have increased our understanding of the processes involved in student learning and the design of learning environments. In addition, I believe that this book attests to the work of the committee members in compiling it and will stand as a lasting memory of the dedication and work of Ann L. Brown, whose research contributed a great deal to our understanding of the science of learnin.
Borthwick, Ann (2018-06-23). "How People Learn: An Education Revolution Two Decades Delayed". National Institute for School Leadership (National Center on Education and the Economy). Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
This spring, the National Research Council is scheduled to release the report of its How People Learn II panel. The original How People Learn report[1], published in 1999, was a landmark report that chronicled and explained the way our understanding of learning changed during the twentieth century — from an understanding dominated by behaviorist theories of learning to an understanding built on cognitive psychology; a change significant enough to have earned the title “cognitive revolution.”
The impetus for How People Learn was concern among scholars of the new science of learning that the advances taking place in knowledge about learning were not informing educational practice. The NRC’s original panel was made up of luminaries in the fields of cognitive psychology, cognitive science, developmental psychology, and social psychology, who had made major contributions to theoretical work and empirical studies in their fields. One contemporary review of the original report observed that “this publication alone could drive decisions of reformers for the next decade in the most productive ways.”
Wolfe, Pat (November 1999). "Reviews: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School". Educational Leadership. 57 (3). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The review notes:
A two-year project by the National Research Council, this book summarizes recent developments in cognitive science research and proposes recommendations for schools. The authors argue that a "new science of learning" is essential in our increasingly complex, information-overloaded society where coverage of the sheer magnitude of knowledge is an impossibility. They propose that an educational system for the 21st century must produce learners who read and think critically, express themselves clearly and persuasively, are able to solve complex problems, and become self-sustaining, lifelong learners.
Given this premise, the authors explore (and extensively document) several major areas of research that have direct application for educational practice: expert performance, transfer of learning, learning in early childhood, the brain and learning, learning environments, effective teaching, and new technologies.
...
The book's illustrations of classroom practice increase the understanding of how the research can be applied, making it relevant for practitioners as well as for policymakers, preservice educators, and school administrators.
Matthews, Dona (2006). "Book Review: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition, edited by John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking". Gifted Children. 1 (1). Purdue University. Archived from the original on 2020-03-22. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School was conceived and written by the Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning of the National Research Council. This committee at the time of writing was composed of several of the most senior scholars involved in teaching and learning, including the three editors of this volume (John Bransford, Ann Brown, and Rodney Cocking), as well as fourteen other equally notable scientists, such as Rochel Gelman, Robert Glaser, Roy Pea, and Barbara Rogoff, to choose but a few. It was born of the Committee’s collective concern about how slowly important new research findings on learning, brain development, and teaching are being translated into educational practice in schools.
...
Bringing together a high level of theoretical and empirical work in developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, educational psychology, and other fields, the authors demonstrate a remarkable convergence of know- ledge in some areas, such as the tremendous importance of early experience in development. They also identify areas where our collective knowledge to date is shaky or nonexistent, suggesting caution with respect to many of the products on the market that are loosely based on emergent findings.
Haras, Kathy (Winter 2007). "How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School" (PDF). Pathways. 19 (2). Council of Outdoor Educators of Ontario. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
I admit it — my participation on listservs mostly consists of lurking. I rarely initiate questions, offer suggestions or share useful resources with other members. And before I bought How People Learn, I had never felt compelled to act on someone’s advice. But one particular listserv posting did such a great job of describing transfer — the ability to extend learning from one context into another — beyond my usual outdoor and adventure education perspective, I wanted to find out what else the National Research Council had to say.
How People Learn links studies on the science of learning to educational practices. Chapter 3, “Learning and Transfer,” describes how learning occurs and highlights four features that facilitate students’ abilities to adapt to new problems and settings. While I doubt the editors intended to describe effective outdoor experiential education (OEE) programs, they provided a wonderful resource for explaining the outdoor experiential learning process to supporters, who are convinced OEE is a good thing, and to skeptics, who have yet to appreciate the educational value of going outdoors.
...
The other chapters of How People Learn are equally relevant to those working in the field of OEE. Reading this book will improve both your practice and your ability to convey to others why outdoor education works.
Bowers, Tom (Summer 2004). "The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning/How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School". Journalism & Mass Communication Educator. 59 (2). Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Proquest.
The article reviews both:
1. Ziill, lames E. (2002). The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publi.shJng. pp. 263.
2. National Rnsoarch Council (2000).How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. pp.374.
The article notes:
These books are very important additions to the literature of teaching and learning—especially for their analysis of what scientists and researchers have learned about how people learn and how teachers can use such knowledge to improve their teaching. Ziill's book especially deserves careful reading by college teachers.
...
How People Learn (HPL) is a broad review of research on the mind and an expansion of an original volume published in 1999 by the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. It was edited by John D. Bransford of the Learning Technology Center of Vanderbilt University; Ann L. Brown of the Graduate School of Education at the University of California at Berkeley; and Rodney Cocking, the study director.
...
HPL cites a study that shows how people have a tendency to remember things or information they were not exposed to. A researcher gave subjects this list of words: sour, candy, sugar, bitter, good, taste, tooth, nice, honey, soda, chocolate, heart, cake, tart, and pie. When they were asked later about whether certain words were on that list, many subjects mistakenly said "sweet" was on the list.
...
It is interesting that neither book gives much attention to popular notions of the importance of right and left sides of the brain. HPL dismisses that idea as a "faddish concept that has not been demonstrated to be of value in classroom practice." It says another misconception is the idea that people use only a small fraction of their brain.
Koziol, Kevin (2008–2009). "Thinking: A Century of Reflection". Journal of Education. Vol. 189, no. 3. SAGE Publishing.
The article notes:
In keeping with the theme of this issue, Reflection and Renewal, this essay book review illuminates one of the threads connecting three texts about thinking: How We Think (1997; orig. 1910), Dewey's classic treatise on human learning; How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (2004), Bransford, Brown, and Cocking's authoritative compendium of learning science; and The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don't Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need — and What We Can Do About It (2008), Tony Wagner's compelling proposal to reformulate schools in light of the global knowledge economy. The connective thread, developed initially by Dewey, focuses on the centrality of children's development from thinking about the present to the possible future and, most germane to this review, the necessary elements of schooling that support this development. The intent of this review is not to summarize three texts that are familiar to many in the field. Rather, it is to connect a classic text, How We Think, to a contemporary one, The Global Achievement Gap, using How People Learn, a well-known text, as a conduit. For some, this essay may encourage close or closer examination of these three important works. For others, this essay may stimulate thinking about new or additional connections among them.
Wells, David G.; McEvoy, Michael; Kundel, Mitchell (Summer 2006). "Learning the Hard Way". CBE: Life Sciences Education. 5 (2). American Society for Cell Biology: 123–125. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-11-0126. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
Therefore, in 1995, the National Research Council (NRC) set out on the daunting task of synthesizing developments in human learning research and using this research to evaluate how our society teaches. The NRC's report, published as How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, contains important and wide-ranging implications for the design of curricula, instruction, assessments, and learning environments.
The report is organized around a central set of three principles about learning and how they should be applied in education. The first recommendation is for teachers to engage the preconceptions that students inevitably have about any subject. Students are not empty vessels waiting to be filled with the knowledge flowing from a teacher's mouth. Rather, students at all ages arrive in the classroom with preconceptions and will always try to fit new information into these preconceptions. Regardless of whether or not these preconceptions are based on real facts, they will always influence learning as the student attempts to assimilate new information into what he/she believes to be true. To identify preconceptions, the teacher needs to design classroom tasks so that the student's thinking process can be revealed. Second, understanding in any area requires a deep factual knowledge of the subject; this deep knowledge consists of ideas that are organized into a context that facilitates retrieval and use. The explicit implication of this educational principle is that superficial coverage of all topics should be abandoned for in-depth coverage of a limited number of topics, stressing specific key concepts. Third, the authors emphasize the importance of student participation in his/her own learning by actively evaluating what they do and do not know. This is a process called “metacognition.”
How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School thoroughly establishes the scientific rationale for the recommended core educational principles it presents. The authors use specific examples to illustrate how experts in different fields are able to access connected information, process it in an organized manner, and use a metacognitive perspective to monitor their own progress. The authors also cite cognitive psychology and biological neuroscience research to describe findings relating to how people learn from early childhood through adult life. Emphasis is placed on the brain's immense capacity to learn and functionally reorganize.
Sylwester, Robert (November 2000). "How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School". Educational Leadership. 58 (3). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: 91.
The article notes:
How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (1999, National Academy Press) is a successful attempt to synthesize current knowledge about learning. Almost 20 scientists and educators participated in this National Academy of Sciences project, and educational policymakers will find the project's results useful for validating the claims of educational programs that purport to be based on scientific research.
Clifford, Pat (Summer 2006). "How People Learn". Education Canada. Vol. 46, no. 3. Canadian Education Association. ISSN 0013-1253.
The article notes:
I'm delighted to report that How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School (Expanded Version) isn't like that -- which may be both good news and bad news for its potential audiences. The good news is that readers will find a thoughtful compilation of (mostly) recent research from what are coming to be known as "the learning sciences": cognitive science, educational psychology, computer science, anthropology, sociology, information sciences, neuro-sciences, education, design studies, and instructional design. A follow-up to the 1999 National Research Council publication of How People Learn in 1999, the Expanded Version presents a richly textured challenge to "many teachers', parents' and students' models of what effective learning looks like" (p.141).
The book does not advocate easy-to-market learning programs or easy-to-inservice topics like multiple intelligences or learning styles. Instead, it offers an overview of a wide range of research, a variety of examples, and suggestions for further research and action. And it debunks conventional pedagogical myths: that a good teacher can teach anything; that generic thinking skills apply across any discipline; that content knowledge is enough.
So the book is both good news and bad news, depending what you want. As the authors explain with deadly accuracy, educators, policy makers and the general public don't actually care much about research. While there has always been a cachet about being up on the latest, education has a weary history of disdain for theory (usually dismissed as airy-fairy, impractical, and ivory-tower) and vulnerability to bandwagons that purport to be theory-based.

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

Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to Cunard for their comprehensive analysis above, although paling in comparison, i am still including my contribution below:) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple (talk · contribs), I think you found a great list of sources yourself. :) Thank you for finding and adding them here! Cunard (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, appears to be a standard text in the field of cognitive science regarding teaching and learning since it was first published in 1999/2000(?) ie. "Developing Teaching, "Introduction to Education: Understanding and Evaluating Education - Readings", "The Challenge of Learning Communities as a Growing National Movement ("There is no shortage of good literature to draw upon. John Bransford's book How People Learn or Lionel Gardner's Redesigning Higher Education for Dramatic Gains in Student Learning are good places to start.")", has been reviewed/discussed in Gifted Children (published by the American Educational Research Association Special Interest Group for Research on Giftedness, Creativity, and Talent - here, International Journal of Science Education - here, The Foundation Review - "The Quest for Deeper Learning and Engagement in Advanced High School Courses" (a study of the Advanced Placement course "U.S. Government and Politics"), so reckon this is a Keep as meeting WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified above. I hope you put some of those into the article, rather than just the deletion discussion. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per comments above. Happy to be proved wrong - thanks for taking the time to comment here. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 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) 19:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Concha Hotel & Spa[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, a non notable hotel. Alan Islas (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. non notable building. Alex-h (talk) 10:03, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting Golf[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Slobodian, Claire (2012-10-29). "Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting Golf". Time Out Shanghai. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
"上海颖奕皇冠假日酒店" [Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting]. China Daily (in Chinese). 2019-09-20. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
"上海颖奕高尔夫皇冠假日酒店隆重开业" [Grand Opening of Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting Golf] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2012-11-14. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Guan, Wenfei; Nu, Nengneng (2012-04-30). "New projects will change the face of Jiading". Shanghai Daily. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
"四个人跑到上海五星酒店吃住一天，人均才300！" [Four people went to a five-star hotel in Shanghai for a day, only 300 per capita!] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2017-12-20. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.

Sources with quotes

Slobodian, Claire (2012-10-29). "Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting Golf". Time Out Shanghai. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
Situated in Anting Town, Jiading district, the Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting Golf is the first five-star hotel and golf course to open in the industry heavy northern district. The hotel is around an hour and a half from downtown Shanghai and within easy access of neighbouring Zhejiang and Jiangsu provinces and a convenient base for visitors to the annual Shanghai Formula 1 Grand Prix – only one metro stop away from the Shanghai International Circuit.
Although primarily a business hotel, equipped with 2,000sqm of event and conference spaces, the 415 room resort also boasts a number of facilities to help guests relax in an area of Shanghai not famed for its entertainment options. There are Cantonese, Japanese and western buffet style restaurants and two bars, Dali's a Havana-themed cocktail lounge with a nod to South American painter Salvadore Dali and Links Café a coffee and cake lobby bar. There is also a decent 25-metre swimming pool and jacuzzi to relax by and a fully-equipped fitness centre. It even has its own wedding chapel.
"上海颖奕皇冠假日酒店" [Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting]. China Daily (in Chinese). 2019-09-20. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
上海颖奕皇冠假日酒店是嘉定区一家按照国家五星级酒店标准建造的国际品牌酒店，近邻轨道交通11号线，坐拥上海汽车会展中心及上海国际赛车场等场馆及景点。酒店拥有结合自然之美的设施，从而确保您的商务或是休闲之旅都有一个难忘体验。
414间客房，套房和公寓房，分别位于酒店两翼，每一间都精心布局，超凡舒适，满足您商务或休闲的需求。舒适下榻之余，您还可以欣赏18洞的高尔夫球场，充满都市情调的别墅群，或是汽车城日新月异的变化。
"上海颖奕高尔夫皇冠假日酒店隆重开业" [Grand Opening of Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting Golf] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2012-11-14. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
上海颖奕高尔夫皇冠假日酒店坐拥上海汽车会展中心及上海国际赛车场等著名场馆和景点，让客人零距离接触城市度假新体验。酒店近邻轨道交通11号线，距离上海虹桥国际机场仅20分钟车程，酒店拥有415间客房，套房和公寓房，分别位于酒店两翼。每一间都精心布局，超凡舒适，满足您商务或休闲的需求。酒店与屡获殊荣的颖奕安亭高尔夫俱乐部自然合为一体，舒适下榻之余，您还可以欣赏世界级的18洞高尔夫球场。
为了更好地满足商务客人的会议需求，上海颖奕高尔夫皇冠假日酒店拥有超过2,000平方米的会议设施，包括可容纳1200人的无柱宴会厅和11个多功能厅，均配备最先进的视听设备和专属皇冠会务总监。内外融合的建筑风格甚至可以让自然光线充分泻入宴会厅和多功能厅。酒店周边商务会展设施齐全，包括上海国际赛车场，上海汽车会展中心，如此得天独厚的地理位置，为企业，会展和商务旅客提供了无限便捷。
Guan, Wenfei; Nu, Nengneng (2012-04-30). "New projects will change the face of Jiading". Shanghai Daily. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
As the first five-star hotel in the district, 415-room Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting Golf will receive its first batch of guests this July.
Having held the roof-sealing ceremony recently, the hotel is now undergoing final preparations.
"四个人跑到上海五星酒店吃住一天，人均才300！" [Four people went to a five-star hotel in Shanghai for a day, only 300 per capita!] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2017-12-20. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
我们挑来挑去找到这家五星酒店
上海颖奕皇冠假日酒店
...
上海颖奕皇冠假日酒店是洲际旗下五星酒店——皇冠假日Crowne Plaza，酒店自带18洞高尔夫球场，整个庭院都被绿色花园覆盖！
是嘉定十大亲子度假地之一！作为一家亲子酒店，不少溜娃神器如儿童乐园、亲子泳池......室内设施齐全，室外风景优美，感觉很适合奶爸奶妈来溜娃。
走进大堂被中庭的绿色景观吸引了目光，苍翠的绿色和头顶玻璃天窗洒进来的暖光，让快被降温冷风吹傻的我们一下子放松下来。

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Crowne Plaza Shanghai Anting Golf to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large and notable five-star hotel with plenty of sourcing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 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. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gardens of the American Rose Center[edit]

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

Non-notable location per WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. I can think of very few rose gardens that deserve a Wikipedia page apart from the White House Rose Garden. KidAd (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. 17:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Meets WP:GNG; it was just a poorly written article which needed/needs improvement. This is the headquarters and garden of the American Rose Society (which has been in operation for over 100 years and is still going strong). I have found numerous news articles covering the gardens and the ARS. Today I have been, and will continue, enhancing this article. Note, KidAd, that there are numerous Wikipedia articles about rose gardens (see "Category:Rose gardens in the United States"). Normal Op (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I recant my statement about notable rose gardens. Nevertheless, if the American Rose Society doesn't even have its own page (it redirects to "Rose Show"), then the organization's rose garden is not notable enough for one. KidAd (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The American Rose Society, a 125-year old organization with over 250 chapters across the USA, is definitely notable enough for its own article. (And if there was an article, I'd have been editing it today.) It's illogical to assume lack of notability based on lack of an article in Wikipedia. There are 18 articles which have wikilinks to "American Rose Society", and at least 60 scanned historic files at Wikimedia commons, so I'd say that's another indicator of notability even within Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did some cleanup on the article, taking out some of the promotional material (including directions and hours). I added references to two published books:
- Louisiana Gardens by Mary Fonseca, Pelican Publishing (1999)
- The Sustainable Rose Garden: A Reader in Rose Culture by Pat Shanley and Marilyn Wellan, Casemate Publishers (2011)

These books make it clear that the Gardens of the American Rose Center are respected and notable among garden enthusiasts. If, as the nominator points out, the American Rose Society doesn't have its own article, then maybe somebody should write one. Either way, it doesn't diminish the notability of the subject currently under discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some work even with the improvement, but it's definitely notable. A simple newspaper search brought up thousands of hits, mostly local, but there's definitely enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 19:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOVE to The American Rose Society --Cornellier (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: After having worked on this article this week, I think The American Rose Society needs its own article, along with keep this article about their gardens. They are two separate topics, even though they are intertwined. The redirect of American Rose Society to Rose show was undoubtedly done because there was some content there. However, the other information about ARS does NOT belong in the article about rose shows. Like I said, ARS needs its own article. In the meantime, I have been putting the content I find in my research into the gardens article as a preliminary to moving it to its own article some day. Normal Op (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs some work but deserves to stay. It has an interesting topic. Also the information about assorted flowers and work of American Rose Society makes it notable. Nika2020 (talk) 11:42, 4 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. There is overwhelming consensus to keep the article (with only two delete votes with seemingly weak and repetitive arguments). In short, the page seems to pass WP:GNG, but the article could still use cleanup (probably more sources). WP:DINC (non-admin closure) A a s i m 08:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelers Primitive Baptist Church[edit]

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

No stated reason for notability beyond WP:ITEXISTS and it being photographed by someone in 1939. A quick search does not reveal anything more substantial. Fails WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 03:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I so not feel qualified to say whether a church in South Carolina which traces its roots back to 1755 is notable for that reason. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from the sources the church building dates to the 1830s so is of historic interest as is the church organisation dating back to 1755 with reliable book sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment reads a lot like WP:ITSOLD... Simply existing does not make even the oldest of buildings notable; the criteria is that it still requires WP:SIGCOV (and if it is of "historic" interest, then surely more than a trivial mention as the subject of a photograph can be found); and unlike those listed here, this building is neither particularly old nor, seemingly, particularly significant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All architecturally intact and interesting buildings at least 50 years of age qualify for National Historical Register listing. As such historically significant church buildings on this website are usually kept even if they are not listed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What utter nonsense. Merely being old enough to potentially qualify for the NRHP is not automatic notability which actual listing may bring, which has additional specific criteria and a review process. Absolutely no WP:V for claims of being an "interesting building" and "historically significant". Being old (WP:ITSOLD) is not a basis for notability, nor does it confer intrigue or significance. Sources fail to establish any of these or GNG with significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 00:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The church is historically significant. The article should be modified according to the references used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakibim (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you talking about? I see that a boatload of external links were added recently, but they're all WP:PRIMARY sources (Church minutes and records (I assume death/baptism/et al.), pictures) which do not establish notability, merely existence. The sources in the article are also that (one is simply a listing of the church in the bibliography section of a book without any kind of commentary whatsoever)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "McDannell, Colleen (2011). Picturing Faith: Photography And The Great Depression. Yale University Press. pp. 93–96. ISBN 978-0300184464" seems enough for GNG. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm being repetitive, but that source primarily covers the picture that was taken of the church. I doubt it is WP:SIGCOV of the church, otherwise such content would also be in the article, instead of the elaborate description of the pictures which we have. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, that book has significant coverage of the church apart from the photograph. Note that WP:GNG includes coverage from sources where the subject is not the main focus of the work and whether the content has been added to the article yet is wholly irrelevant, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so the book (or at least, this part of it) is available on Google Books. I checked page by page. The only thing that could qualify as coverage of the church specifically is the following:

"The women told Lange that their church was Primitive Baptist and more than a hundred years old. What Lange could not show in her photographs, and what the women did not volunteer, Wheeley's church had been a Primitive Baptist church only since 1832. The original Baptist congregation had actually been founded in 1755. Wheeley's Primitive Baptist Church was one of the many varieties of Baptist churches that southerners could attend." [bottom of p. 93]

Page 94 deals mostly with the emergence of Baptist reforms in the early 19th-century. The only mention of the church is in saying that they rejected such reforms:

"When the members of Wheeley's Meeting House passed a resolution in 1832 condemning such innovations in Baptist life, part of the congregation left to form their own church. Those remaining at Wheeley's added the modifier primitive to their church's name.

The remainder of the text (up to the mentioned p. 96) deals with the attitudes of the church members, some of the specifics of how services were held (i.e. they "met once a month", a practice "not unusual in the South"), and the specifics of the photograph (permissions, what it depicts, ...). In short, in my considered opinion, this is not "significant coverage" of the church itself (and it's all already within the article), rather a few passing mentions as the writer of the text heads to the more significant – for the purposes of the book, which deals mosly with such depictions – photograph.

Some of the content could go in Primitive Baptists, and what little, if I deliberately misuse the term, "biographical" information there is could possibly be merged into List of Primitive Baptist churches, where most of the churches have a blue link – I trimmed away the rest –, are registered on the NRHP and have a proper article with sufficient coverage, eg. Primitive Baptist Church of Brookfield. While it's not notable, the broader topic is so I might support a merge (and then the article on the church itself could be kept as a reasonable redirect to the list) of the relevant information to the list article (which should be made into a table or something) – this is the usual for members of a notable group when all entries are not necessarily notable, i.e. see WP:SIA and WP:CSC. @Premeditated Chaos: If you wish to ignore the usual procedures a bit and alter your close to "merge" as I suggest above I would not object. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's consensus for a speedy merge, definitely it would need to be hashed out here some more. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Numerically there are more keeps but RandomCanadian has brought up reasonable questions about those arguments that have not been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being covered in a book by Dorothea Lange and a few other literary sources that even discuss the inner politics of the church during the early 20th century seems to demonstrate historical signficance. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lange did not write the book, someone else wrote the book about about Lange's photos and their subjects. This included dozens of churches and by no means indicates they individually have "historical significance", only that someone in history took pictures of everyday life during the Great Depression and took notes for context. Reywas92^Talk 20:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to comment again for fear of WP:BLUDGEON, but yeah, see also the summary of the content's of that book above (there's even a link, if you can access the content from where you are). The only other apparently literary source cited appears to have been published by the church itself in 1944 and is only used as a source for alternative names; hardly enough for notability. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename > Wheeley's Church (photographs) or Wheeley's Church (Dorothea Lange) as photos are notable.07:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete simply put, this fails WP:N Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a historical church that is discussed in reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Old ≠ "historical" ≠ notable.
Keep, I'm satisfied with the sourcing and the references to its records in a number of secondary works suggest to me that it's historiographically important, even more than its historically important.--Jahaza (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Lange's works themselves were broadly historiographically important; there's little indications the scores of churches and other places she photographed are individually so. Over 4,000 of her photos are archived in the Library of Congress, any of which are arguably just as relevant to the history. Reywas92^Talk 00:25, 6 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 merge to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities#Russia. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled[edit]

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

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

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

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

There isn't a necessity to create an article like this only related to COVID-19 cases in the nursing homes for the disabled in Russia. I don't think this kind of article is written on the perspective of other countries. I also speculate the author might have created the article in Russian language which is also nominated for deletion in Russian Wikipedia. The sources are purely in Russian language. Abishe (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Abishe:, -- I don't see any reasons yet. Sources are good, but it's yet a stub, they will be added with the time, I'll add these in half-hour, see BBC, for example, [Coronavirus: Nightmare spreads through Russia's care homes https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52784913]. So, BBC may be a reason for notable item, I suppose. But anyway, thank you for your work on Wikipedia as reviewer. PoetVeches (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draft Nothing here that can't be covered in the Russian Covid-19 article. The length of the article title is ridiculous, it's not even a plausible search term. An article on the subject of Care Homes in Russia during covid-19 might be something that is justifiable in the future but its WP:TOOSOON to write a complete article or know if it will get sustained coverage and be notable in its own right. It likely will be, but as of now it is not. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlessandroTiandelli333: This Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities is also too long, it's not reason. Too soon - may not be reason too when it was a month ago on BBC (It's not 2024 Hollywood future movie about Michael Jackson). Reasons may be a spam, or lack of sources, libel, attack pages, xenophobic, etc. PoetVeches (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this is a potentially very important article, though it would need more development as it is probably just a little WP:TOOSOON. Whilst the article title could be shortened to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities in Russia, for now I suggest simply to merge a summary of the unfolding story into a new section in the current article at Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities. It doesn't matter that the sources are in Russian, but the content does need to be succinct. The current article can be draftified, to be worked up as more information comes to light into a separate article - assuming the current one becomes too long. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Yes, let's give short shrift for this information that smells rotten eggs on Russia's Health Service. Vladimir Putin would agree with you. PoetVeches (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PoetVeches: You do your cause no good by saying that. I have offered my view as to the best way forward to present information on an unfolding situation now, whilst also allowing you to develop more detail and put a properly formed page into mainspace when its ready. If you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, you will not have much success, and will only get frustrated and cross with everyone else. I did not waste my time copyediting your article to improve on its English simply because I wanted to see it immediately deleted! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: Thank you anyway for your time wasting on the Russian matters. I am really supporter of democracy and appreciate your opinion without any irony. Also I am not going to be crazy about the deletion because BBC articles about the Russian drama yet remain to be published and you cannot delete them, that how democracy is working. Wikipedia is only a mirror of BBC, CNN, and other free news agencies. PoetVeches (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All said opinions are not serious. This is article about drama in Russian care homes, it's not for a section or paragraph to merge in other article. It's well sourced. It's illustrated. It cannot be moved to draft space, because it's not a draft, but an article of start class. But I appreciate all opinions said. Thank you. PoetVeches (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Have their been any deaths in the homes, attributed to COVID-19? (To be clear, I think this still could be a legitimate topic without death. If worse comes to worse in this vote, I think the entirety would be valid within Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities.) -- Zanimum (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer my own question, the BBC says that Russia (so far) is an outlier in terms of infection rate, which either means the country's nursing homes have faired better than the rest of Europe, or there's been a cover-up, as noted by a nursing home operator at the end of the article. I do feel this is a valid topic. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Nick Moyes. Splitting can be considered if/when it gains more content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstained to comment any more because I was accused on WP:Tea House of WP:CANVASSING so I have to say to all, and of course, it is absolutely on your choice, all the people, how to vote, yes or no. Thank you again. I have to not interrupt your vote procedure with my comments also and keep silent, I suppose. I apologize I didn't know I cannot comment because it would a WP:CANVASSING. I just wonder what is criteria for deletion ([1]), but nobody answers me. PoetVeches (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities#Russia. There doesn’t seem to be too much here that is unique to Russia to do a merge and redirect. The info will actually be better served in an article that is easier to find. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities#Russia, and also summarize some of the content in COVID-19 pandemic in Russia (itself a plausible merge target). This very specific article is within the scope of both of those articles, so WP:OVERLAP applies.
Note: the article seems to have been moved since the last AfD comment before me. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:03, 3 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. Tone 04:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Crowne Plaza[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability. No references. No significant coverage in my searches. -- Whpq (talk) 23:43, 5 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) 19:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partech Ventures[edit]

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

Article extensively modified as a violation of the Terms of Use as undisclosed paid editing by a user now blocked by adminstrator MER-C. Although apparently copiously sourced, a closer look demonstrates this is pure WP:REFBOMBing. Fully 26 out of the 35 references are to various VC funding transactions. As as VC firm, VC funding is the only thing it does and thus any coverage of it is run of the mill and not significant. Most of these are also obvious press releases and therefore not independent. The remaining nine references are also problematic. Four are to announcements of a new office (not significant), three are to generic database listings or About Us pages, one is to another press release about a normal business transaction, leaving only one possibly-relevant source. This one, to the magazine for something called the HEUREKA conference, is to a site so poorly-configured that multiple layers of my internet security software refuse to allow me to connect to it. TL;DR version: paid-for article to a standard business generating no significant, independent coverage in reliable sources and therefore a violation of WP:COI and WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO, fails CORP. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily written by undeclared paid editors., as linked above. If the firm is notable, a clean artile couldbestarted in draft space by an unaffiliated editor. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 01:02, 6 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) 19:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Ruck Keene[edit]

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

Unremarkable person   Kadzi   (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for the other page to be deleted because I misspelt “Keene” so I used the template to delete it promptly and created a new article with the correct spelling.--EsotericJoe (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If one uses the available ways to find sources then he or she can see that results of Keene are found.--EsotericJoe (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is heavily padded with non-independent sources of non-accomplishments, and I was not able to find anything better (such as heavy citations or in-depth news coverage of the subject) that would allow her to pass WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Sourcing is sparse enough that the newly-created article appears to have misstated her academic rank and affiliation — it says only she is associate lecturer at Exeter but she appears to also hold a position as senior lecturer at Oxford Brookes. (Or maybe is in the process of moving from one to the other.) Her precise rank is not directly a notability issue but the confusion over this issue demonstrates that proper sourcing is problematic here, and illustrates why we should not have articles in such cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tiny cites on GS. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete She doesn't have a sufficiently senior academic post to establish notability on that ground, nor has her research been particularly cited. She hasn't won any discernible awards, and while there is some press coverage of her, it seems anecdotal and doesn't demonstrate her notability. Pi (Talk to me!) 00:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search in Google Scholar found only a few citations and I found nothing to show any of the notability criteria at WP:NPROF are met. It doesn't appear that there is enough significant independent coverage of her to show that she meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Infographics Show[edit]

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

Only non-primary source cited in the article is a Forbes contributor article, whose author is be an expert according to his bio, making the source reliable itself. However, the cited article is just a short trivial summary of the Inforaphics Show and the video shown in the article, which doesn't meet the notability guideline for web content.

A Google search for the Infographics show doesn't bring up anything meaningful besides the show's online profiles and articles talking about unrelated infographics themselves. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Note many articles may be on the subject of one of the shows but do talk about the Infographics Show at length as well, which means the sources pass WP:SIGCOV. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is quite biased. Not sure about it's reliability, but it could be used for a "criticism" bit. Second was what I was talking about. Third is better, could get a pass (though I don't think the Infographics Show is a kids' series). Fourth, fifth, and seventh are trivial mentions. Sixth is on a site which does articles on "How much money does (insert popular YouTuber) make", doubt that would be meaningful.

I'll wait for other people to comment on this. If you have sources you think are reliable, why not add them to the article? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 23:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Why havn't you improved the article now?" is not an appropriate reply in an AFD. The user does not need to take time out of their day to do anything but prove that there are sources in an AFD if they support "keep", they're not obligated to fix the article right away.★Trekker (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my reply. I wasn't to be uncivil. I was suggesting that if there were reliable sources, they should be put in the article to prove the subject is notable. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 02:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its narrow, but I'm going with week keep. Besides the sources found by the above user there is also this from Dread Central, this from Medium and this. There are also several articles I saw which mention the series as a reliable and good YT channel while not being specifically about the channel. I think a reception section can be built on that.★Trekker (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source looks like a trivial promotion, the second source is most likely user-generated, and the third source leans closer towards a trivial mention. When there are not much articles significantly covering a subject, the notability becomes more disputed. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 02:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I also found a few reliable sources which talk about the show: [9] and [10]. These, including the ones indicated above, make the article good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, don't bother responding. I'm not interested in looking for an argument or debate in this AfD. I've said what I have said. So, I won't reply any further. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently, I didn't search well enough, in which the Google News search brings up several articles bringing up the Infographics Show (I'm kinda embarrassed). [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. While most aren't detailed in the mentions, maybe this could push for a weak article. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 19:11, 5 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) 19:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiakümzük Aier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NDIRECTOR. Spiderone 17:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and only notable for one directorial venture as per WP:1E. The subject is also a kind of WP:TOOSOON. Abishe (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 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) 19:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamz Unlimited - Nagaland[edit]

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

Recreation of a page previously deleted via AfD. More than half of the links are dead despite the article being created today. Clear failure of WP:GNG. Spiderone 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see anything supporting notability for this company. Mccapra (talk) 04:05, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Sport[edit]

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

Reviewing under NPP. This BLP is sourced mainly to interviews, Youtube and the website of the subject’s management company. They may be notable but it’s not clear to me so coming here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page at least functions as a helpful redirect. I've not assessed sourcing yet, but IF the subject is deemed not yet notable enough for a standalone article, please redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) and do not delete altogether. Also, I wish the nominator had posted their concern on the article's talk page, or tried redirecting, before jumping straight to AfD. The nominator acknowledges the subject may be notable -- well then, next time maybe do a search before just complaining about the current substandard sourcing. Thanks --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if not determined to be notable the page should be redirected, not deleted. --Kbabej (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, almost every RPDQ contestant, especially from the season that ended yesterday, will meet GNG with dozens of articles chronicling their progress over the summer. I see at least a dozen good candidates here. Additionally, the entire cast is tapped for tours, gigs, and interviews. Even contestants from prior seasons are mentioned again and again over the years as they compare and contrast new to old so there are very few contestants that won’t meet at least GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Outside of interviews, there's coverage solely on the subject (versus episode recaps) in the Huff Post, Billboard, Gay Times, Pink News, Cosmopolitan, and others. There's also tons of coverage discussing her participation on the show, which a quick Google search will show. As as aside, I don't think it's appropriate to nominate an article without following the deletion nomination steps, which includes a WP:BEFORE search. Stating "They may be notable" leads me to believe there wasn't a lot of source review outside WP. --Kbabej (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ru Paul's Drag Race contestants make sense for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fans want to know more about contestants and follow up on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.39.64 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought the rule was that only the winners and runner(s) up of reality TV shows are notable simply for appearing on the reality show. This one finished in 8th place! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of that policy. Can you point to it? If someone has RS covering them and meet GNG, why would not winning a reality TV competition preclude them from an article? --Kbabej (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, Notability is based on secondary coverage, not specifically how they placed on a reality show. I agree with you, Jan's participation on RPDR does not make her notable, but sourcing covering her biography and work might. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen others argue that if your only notable activity as an entertainer was as a game show contestant, you'd need to win to be considered notable. Obviously, if there is significant press coverage unrelated to her appearances on the show, she would satisfy GNG, but I don't see it, except for the one Cosmopolitan article about make-up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the scope and breadth of sources about the subject cited above, which demonstrate that the notability standard has been met here. Alansohn (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the above sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12). I'll probably voice an unpopular opinion, so don't eat me up. This is a borderline single event case. I say borderline, because there is some coverage, but it is so dependent on the primary event that separating subject's individual weight from the influence and attention trail of the show is practically impossible. 'Almost every contestant from this show will meet criteria' is not an argument and represents what is usually called biased, as every case should be treated independently. Notwithstanding previous comments, I don't believe there are enough reliable sources that indicate significance explicitly outside of the competition in question. Juliette Han (talk) 16:40, 6 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. Tone 04:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gnaeus Cornelius Tegidus[edit]

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

The article is too short and the only source for it is Rodovid, which is considered to be an extremely unreliable. I can't find any mention of him in other sources Симмах (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- There are articles on this father Publius Cornelius Tacitus (the historian Tacitus) and his mother Julia Agricola, the latter does not deserve to exist and would probably be best merged to her husband. The family section of the article on Tacitus does not include full details, so that this is a case for merge, not redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not create place holder articles on people who had notable family members.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirecting or merging (unless other sources are found). The only source is unreliable, and the article on Tacticus does not mention the name of this supposed son. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:49, 6 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) 15:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Michael Maurer[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since tagged in 2014. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST. Unable to locate any biographical information, just trivial mention such as this. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources comes even close to passing the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 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) 15:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Paul Cambry[edit]

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

Not notable in Wikipedia terms ... no significant mentions from reliable sources. Created by the subject himself and there is often promotional editing related to the article (recent example, which led me to this page). This article was proposed for deletion by Ohnoitsjamie with an endorsement by TonyTheTiger before the proposed deletion template was removed by the editor who has made the promotional edits that I linked above. I now think it's worth nominating this page to deletion from a process with much more teeth. P.s. the link added in this edit that tried to counteract the proposed deletion is in no way a significant mention. Graham87 15:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO criteria, nor WP:MUSIC criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music about this discussion. Graham87 15:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – on the merit of this article previously having gone through AfC, and the initial author (presumably identical to the subject of the article) apparently not having edited the article any more after it had gone to mainspace, after following correct AfC procedure. AfC means that at least one non-involved editor thought the article passed WP:GNG, or it wouldn't have gone to mainspace in the first place. @Jodi.a.schneider and OlEnglish: pinging the editor who moved the article to mainspace, and the editor who posted the AfC accept note on the initial editor's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being passed through AFC by a single editor doesn't exempt a subject from having to meet WP:GNG requirements. Which criteria do you believe are being met here? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet notability criteria, and reads like a piece of wikipuffery - (as does, for that matter, the WP article on his brother Emile Cambry, Jr. which also seems to me to a prime candidate for deletion).--Smerus (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smerus: Wow, I never really checked that article out. Duly nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Cambry Jr. Graham87 15:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria. Also an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JPC is not the central subject of any critical commentary in WP:RS. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, etc.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:56, 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) 15:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nursing and Para-Medical Colleges in Kerala[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY ~SS49~ {talk} 15:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a linked article in the bunch. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 4 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 redirect to St. Bonaventure University#Academics. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaresponds[edit]

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

Reads like a promo piece. Only coverage is by a local newspaper run by students in St. Bonaventure, I-don’t-know-where (probably NY State as per Google Maps), and another local newspaper reporting about a park pavilion renovated by the organisation. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 11:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (potentially merge a sentence or two) to St._Bonaventure_University#Academics where the org is mentioned , only has local significance and little coverage, fails WP:NONPROFIT. Newspapers.com has two articles that even mention the org, google shows very few articles and certainly no WP:CORPDEPTH. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:01, 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) 04:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westin Hapuna Beach Resort[edit]

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

This is not a notable hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent and reliable sources. Searches find the usual advertisements, confirmations that this is simply another Marriot Hotel etc but nothing substantial. Claims to notability by mentioning beach, gold course etc are all peripheral and convey no notability to the hotel. Fails WP:GNG by a long way. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 20:37, 6 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don Towsley (animator)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Sourcing is thin, the article has been without any since at least 2009, and a Google search reveals mentions of him are largely wiki mirrors and sites selling his work. It's clear that he was involved in making lots of films, but it does not seem that he "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." (NCREATIVE criteria #3) The Animated Movie Guide mentions him 4x in passing, and America's Film Legacy twice. The Who's who in Animated Cartoons, has no mention of him at all in the GBooks preview. It appears he was briefly Donald Duck's main animator at one point, but there's no evidence he did any more than that. The animators who shaped Disney's animation are the Nine Old Men, of which Towsley was not one. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. I did what I could to add some sources to the article, including Silly Symphonies: A Companion to the Classic Cartoon Series, Walt Disney's Fantasia, Creating the Filmation Generation and Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, plus a couple newspaper stories from the Chicago Tribune and Minneapolis Star-Tribune about a 1948 side project. A lot of the source material is listings and passing mentions, but there are a lot of them, so maybe they add up to something. I think Towsley's best shot at notability is working on Jiminy Cricket and Monstro the Whale for Pinocchio. I suspect that there's some coverage in J.B. Kaufman's 2015 Pinocchio: The Making of a Disney Epic, but I don't own it so I can't say how much. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:48, 16 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) 01:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 14:27, 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) 15:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel[edit]

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

This is not a notable hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. NavjotSR (talk) 15:18, 3 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 redirect to STR, Inc#LJ Research. Has already been merged to the target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LJ Research[edit]

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

There was nothing notable about this company. Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: An unreferenced article with some promotional editing (e.g. this edit by STR Data). My searches are finding little beyond routine listings and some press coverage of the 2016 takeover announcement, so this fails WP:NCORP. One possible outcome is to redirect to STR, Inc where the acquisition of this company and its subsequent divisional role are covered adequately. AllyD (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to STR, Inc#LJ Research, which acquired LJ Research. In this diff, I merged in material from LJ Research, added an {{anchor}} for "LJ Research" to the paragraph containing information about it, and added a source from The Herald.
Cunard (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP Angryskies (talk) 10:41, 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) 15:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horst van Cuyck[edit]

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

Not very notable and lacking proper references. Rathfelder (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, not one source. Reads like a memorial. PJvanMill (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page with no indication of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 15:02, 5 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) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhruddin Syed[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Störm (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with nominators logic of WP:NOTNEWS. It may be added to Covid 19 deaths in Pakistan. Every death doesn't demand a separate WP- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 12:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. --Saqib (talk) 16:16, 3 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 redirect to Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resttschechei[edit]

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

Fails GNG—I have not been able to find any sources which deal significantly with this term as a separate subject from Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia; suggest redirecting there. b uidhe 12:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 12:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 12:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia while it fails GNG, there is no mention of the term at Buidhe's proposed redirect location, and at least a sentence there would be helpful. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced mention added to the protectorate article. b uidhe 22:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, a merge is not necessary now that there's a mention in proposed target. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:13, 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 Reel Big Fish. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wong[edit]

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

Musician who fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG more broadly. User:Namiba 11:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 11:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 11:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doubtful that any of these band members need an individual page. Caro7200 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not create articles on musicians who lack notability outside the band they are a member of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reel Big Fish as not independently notable imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:29, 3 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. In the opinion of most, sufficient sources to support the topic's notability have been identified. The "delete" side generally does not address these sources. Sandstein 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views of Winston Churchill[edit]

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

Delete. This article has been unstable since it was first created in September 2019 and is in breach of WP:NOT on several counts, including WP:IINFO, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA and WP:NOTANARCHY. The article was obviously created in order to try and make a WP:POINT of the type that we have repeatedly seen at Winston Churchill itself, especially on its talk page which was recently protected. As WP:NOT rightly asserts, in the provision of encyclopedic value there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done – merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete If there was more here I might vote keep, as it is this can be merged with no real loss of any depth. Also soime of it does not even seem to be about race, so there is a whiff of OR and fork.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Some of the prose is a bit "blog" and "commentary" which runs against policy, but saying that, the quotes are extensive and not chopped up as much as I'd feared. It might need tightening and re-focusing, but I'm not sure it needs a full deletion. doktorb _words^deeds 11:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic covered by a sizeable literature, and the material on the topic I'm most familiar with (Churchill's views of Indians as relevant to the Bengal Famine) seems a patchy but basically OK summary of historians' views. From what I've seen, there's a consensus that Churchill was racist towards Indians. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The lead in this article, "Winston Churchill made a variety of contradictory statements on racial and cultural issues, making generalized conclusions difficult", is the key takeaway and it, and the—after a very heavy pruning and editing of the lightly referenced—sections that follow, should be merged into a new small subsection on the Winston Churchill article (2-4 sentences at most) or scattered into the relevant existing sections. Any views Winston Churchill had need to be assessed against the majority views of the time (not of today) - it is where they were substantially different to the norms of then that they become noteworthy, particularly if they had a major influence on his decisions. Even though deceased, should be treated like LPB - only high quality multiple source referenced facts to survive. Kangaresearch (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict × 2) Myself, I started a spinoff page about Churchill to fill a gap – Winston Churchill as painter. I was confident that this was valid as a separate topic because I found books on the subject:

Sir Winston Churchill: His Life and His Paintings
Winston Churchill: His Life as a Painter
Sir Winston Churchill: Life Through His Paintings
Churchill: The Statesman as Artist

By contrast, the page in question is not supported by specific and substantial sources like this. If we search for book titles which link Churchill with race, all we seem to find is:

Churchill and Colonist Ii: The Story of Winston Churchill and His Famous Race Horse
The Island Race

The first book about the race horse shows the extent of the vast literature about Churchill. The second is a book written by Churchill and it's about British history. It seems telling that the page in question does not cite this work to tell us Churchill's views about "the island race". Instead, it seems to cherry pick fragments from elsewhere. These seem tendentious, engaging in original research and synthesis to make a selective case – a classic WP:POVFORK. So, as we seem to lack suitable sources to support such a split, the conclusion is Delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The literature on the Bengal Famine alone includes pretty significant coverage of Churchill's racial views. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andrew Davidson is not doing the right search, as "race" has multiple meanings; more relevant results are found by searching "Winston Churchill and racism". While there may not be many scholarly sources which deal with Churchill's racial views per se (or at least they were not obvious when doing a Google Scholar search), there are some which discuss it significantly as part of a larger work.^[1] There are more sources which discuss his racial views in terms of particular issues and groups (eg. antisemitism/Zionism, the Bengal famine, Caribbean immigration^[2] proposed "keep England white" election slogan etc.) which you can see from the sources in the article. Also, Churchill's racial views have caused modern day controversies [17][18] to the point that a UN ambassador was forced to apologize for quoting Churchill on a completely unrelated subject.^[3] Obviously the article needs to be kept under close watch because it could easily become a magnet for all sorts of OR and POV pushing, but that's not a good reason to delete it. b uidhe 12:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Havardi, Jeremy (2010). The Greatest Briton: Essays on Winston Churchill's Life and Political Philosophy. Shepheard-Walwyn. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-85683-335-9.
^ Manchester, William; Reid, Paul (2012). The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Defender of the Realm, 1940-1965. Little, Brown. pp. 506–507. ISBN 978-0-316-22214-3.
^ Horton, Helena (8 October 2018). "UN ambassador for space apologises for quoting 'racist' Winston Churchill". The Telegraph. Retrieved 30 May 2020.

Keep per Nick-D and buidhe. There is quite a lot of literature about Churchill's infamous racist views. SD0001 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that we have articles titled Racial views of Adolf Hitler and Racial views of Donald Trump, I don't see how we can delete this article. Smallchief (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the answer to that, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buidhe and Nick-D. The sources exist; the article is not bad enough to justify blowing it up and starting over; and a merger would be inappropriate due to the quantity of material. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per not just the other arguments, but seems like the topic would be inconvenient for those who wish not to commensurate Churchill as a key figure of WWII against Nazism with his racial views that would look possibly negative and could infulence his evaluation. Worst case it could be merged into his mother article.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Delete/merge As per Kangaresearch. Unless his views were notably different to other people of his generation then they don't need to be singled out. By today's standards everyone of his generation would be considered a bit racist, the only difference is here that Churchill is well known and well sourced (including by his own writings). There's a vast difference between the norm and those whose racist views were so extreme that they deliberately exterminated 6 million people - so it's right that Hitler's position should be explored in more detail. That aside, it is a dreadful article: poor structure, limited/weak sourcing, bit of synthesis and often contradictory, which is the kind of thing one would expect from a POV fork like this and exactly why Wikipedia has policies to prevent such articles in the first place. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the fact that his racial views weren't any different from the people of his generation is not really a valid reason to not have this article. We do have an FA on George Washington and slavery even though Washington's views on slavery were the norm at the time. It's just that we have the sources, as is the case here. Concerns about the poor structure should be addressed editorially and not through deletion. SD0001 (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not about your opinion, it's about Wikipedia's content policies. The burden of proof is with those who want to keep this article: they need to prove that the content meets the notability critieria (and not the WP:NOT criteria, which is where it is at the moment). If he were still alive then this 'article' would be simply an attack page, and thus qualify for speedy deletion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that the topic of the article meets the notability criteria as there are a number of sources. I don't think notability is what this AfD seeks to dispute - the nomination statement is based entirely on WP:NOT. The alleged WP:NOT violations are something that can be fixed through editing. SD0001 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic with plenty of available sources. Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources and WP:ARTN. I agree with SD0001's point that "other people were racist then too" is not an excuse for the racist views of a major historical figure, and if there are reliable sources discussing the topic, then the topic is notable. Concerns about structure, sourcing and synthesis can be corrected via normal editing, as per ARTN. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you maybe undermine your argument by citing that aspect of notability guidelines. Notability is determined by weighting; content should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (my emphasis). Creating a separate fork to introduce value judgements because those opinions would not otherwise merit coverage seems like an attempt to circumvent core policy (which some of the users involved have tried before in other, equally high profile articles). If a significant number of reliable sources dedicate a significant amount of space to this aspect then it may deserve an article. If it's just fringe views by a minority then it does not meet WP:ARTN. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Winston Churchill. clearly a WP:SYNTHy content fork. Great as a proposed topic of someone's Masters or PhD thesis, but not a standalone Wikipedia article. --Nug (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of nomination[edit]

Comments. As nominator, I did not intend to take any further part here as I was happy to await consensus but I'm concerned to see so many entries focused on notability criteria because that is irrelevant. I'm not disputing the notability of the subject. SD0001 has recognised that by pointing out that the nomination is entirely based on WP:NOT, which isn't notability – it is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

My contention is that the article is a honeypot for people with a WP:POINT to make about a topic that, however notable, is extremely contentious and, in contextual terms, highly dubious. Churchill was a Victorian/Edwardian imperialist who considered other races to be inferior because that was the collective mindset of contemporary British people in all classes who perceived the empire as not merely a fact but a right. It was not until after the Second World War and perhaps not until the 1960s that this ignorant mindset began to be demolished.

Churchill was not a racist in 21st century terms (whereas Hitler certainly was) and that is the big mistake his accusers make and why I say that their case is highly dubious in terms of the historical context. Churchill did not agitate on racist grounds and he was unconcerned about biological differences. His attitude to people from his equivalent of the "third world" was just that – he saw inhabitants of such countries as underdeveloped compared with the industrialised powers and therefore, to his imperialist way of thinking they must be inferior and in need of British, American or European leadership, but not biologically inferior. It is a fact that his negative attitude towards Indians had more to do with his apparent distaste for Hinduism, but on the other hand he saw great merit in Zionism. I would be more concerned about Churchill's chauvinism than any alleged racism. Although he was largely dominated by Clementine in the domestic sphere, his attitude to women in general really was deplorable.

Going back to the nomination statement, WP:NOT rightly asserts that in the provision of encyclopaedic value there is an important distinction between what can be done and what should be done – merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. My contention is that this article should not be here because it is not suitable. The parent article is the place for short character assessment summaries and the salient points made in the racism article are already in the parent, but without WP:UNDUE.

So, please leave notability out of the discussion. Because we're talking about Churchill, it should go without saying that the article meets the GNG. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a significant literature on this topic, which there is, then having an article on it is appropriate. We don't delete articles because they might be problematic to maintain, and the OK shape of the article at present indicates that this isn't a significant issue anyway. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the nominator is also trying to make a WP:POINT, and has a POV: that "Churchill was not a racist in 21st century terms (whereas Hitler certainly was)". The statement "that is the big mistake his accusers make" indicates that the nominator believes there is a set of "accusers" and "defenders", and is taking a position on the side of the "defenders". Obviously Churchill was less racist than Hitler was; everybody was less racist than Hitler. (And see Godwin's law for a comment on the strength of that argument.)

I agree that the term "racist" is loaded and POV. At the moment of my posting this response, the word is used in the article once: "Churchill often made disparaging and outright racist comments about Indians," and that will be corrected ten seconds from now because I'm going to take the phrase "and outright racist" out of that sentence. "Churchill often made disparaging comments about Indians" could still be improved (what does "often" mean? should it be "Churchill made several documented disparaging comments about Indians"?) but at this point it's just a matter of normal editing and doesn't need to be a deletion discussion.

This discussion is focusing on notability criteria, because that's what deletion discussions are usually for. If the subject is notable, then an article is appropriate and shouldn't be deleted. The nominator's statement that there are "accusers" indicates that the topic is notable, and just needs to be balanced between "accusation" and "defense" to the level that the reliable sources support. If lots of RS say that Churchill's views on race were unremarkable and only one source says that they were extreme, then that should be reflected in the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Buidhe and per Toughpigs' reply above. Seems there's no dispute as to notability at this point, and the WP:NOT issues identified by the nom can, if necessary, be fixed by editing the article. If reliable sources exist disputing the claim that Churchill was racist and are not already included, then they can—and should—be added. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is a dispute about notability otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. It seems like some are confusing the notability of the subject with the notability of the object. One is notable, one is not. The WP:NOT argument is a non-starter, which is why content discussions don't usually bother - it's easy enough to fix with judicious editing and references. The real question is the weighting of those references: how many RS comment on racial views as a proportion of the totality of sources on the subject? Is an individual article on this topic giving undue prominence to an aspect of Winston Churchill that most reliable sources pay minimal (if any) attention to? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Ed, Apologies, I was referring to the nominator and phrased that (very) badly. Obviously you do dispute that the subject is notable, though I'm pleased you agree with me that any WP:NOT issues can be fixed by editing.

I can assure you that, personally, I'm not confused on the point you raise: I'm aware that an article on Potato crisp preferences of Winston Churchill would not be notable simply because Churchill is. But your argument—proportion of sources mentioning something—would also be an argument for deleting Early life of Winston Churchill, presumably, since the vast majority of reliable sources about him will be silent on his childhood: I can only assume that the vast majority of works in reliable sources that have written about Churchill have written about his premiership in the Second World War. Unless, of course, you mean that the majority of biographies, and other works discussing his life in totality, don't mention his views on race? I'd be surprised if that's true, though I don't have access to a collection of biographies with which to check.

I'm a little confused as to where you've found the idea of weighting of sources in WP:N; the line you quote earlier in the discussion (fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources) is from WP:NPOV, which of course isn't used to determine whether an article should exist or not, but to determine what should be in articles that do exist. Indeed, the only mention of weighting that I can find on the main notability guideline page (under WP:NOPAGE) makes the exact opposite point to the one you're making—that if something is a minority theory or viewpoint (which you appear to think this is; correct me if I'm wrong), then it may be better served by a standalone article than in a main article, which might give it exactly that undue weight.

In terms of meeting WP:GNG, it seems clear that there are multiple reliable sources discussing what views on race Winston Churchill had, and not all just attack pieces. Some things are anti-Churchill, of course: like this in the Independent [19], and in the Washington Post [20]; others are balanced on the issue, like Sky News [21], The Times [22] (which concedes that he was racist but argues that he was "still a great man") and the BBC [23] (which of course has a statutory duty to be neutral on political questions). There are also pieces defending Churchill, such as this from the "Churchill Project" at Hillsdale College [24], and this from the International Churchill Society [25]. And those are just the ones I found from a quick Google.

As I said, all of these viewpoints (not necessarily these exact sources) should be cited in the article. But it seems the topic itself has received the signficant coverage needed by GNG. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill's premiership during the war it was only part of a long public career that didn't end in 1945. As it happens, there are indeed many books about his childhood. Typically, Churchill didn't leave this up to his biographers, but wrote an account himself, My Early Life (1930). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, indeed; he was PM again after that, of course. I think it's still true though that, if a source is picked at random, it's more likely than not to be covering WWII than to be covering his early life, his post-war political career, or indeed his views on race. I'm not actually trying to argue that there shouldn't be an article covering his early life (though I can't find the "many books" that you refer to that are specifically about his childhood). Off-topic, but of course an autobiography would be about as far from the independent of the subject stipulation of WP:GNG as one can get! YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 23:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep every modern biography of Churchill has at least a section devoted to his "racial" views. Side comment: the article shouldn't be reduced to whether Churchill made racist comments or not, but whether he supported a colonialist and racist state policy towards the people of the Indian subcontintent.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Most of this infomation can be shortened and summarised within the main article and the specific topic does not warrant its own article. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After much heartburn, I have concluded that Nick-D is correct; the article does meet WP:GNG, and I abhor attempts to rule entire subjects off-limits under WP:NOT. That is not to say that I disagree with the nominator, quite the contrary; it is very hard for me to visualise this article ever becoming more than a dumping ground for toxic waste. But at least it will keep it out of the main article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. This is a relevant subject discussed in the literature, although the current article lacks the necessary balance and plurality of sources (it's mainly based on Roberts' book. Alcaios (talk) 14:56, 5 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. Sandstein 12:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silke Engel (German Literature Scientist, Journalist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACAD. The equivalent article has just been deleted from German Wikipedia (I couldn't get at the reason). Ingratis (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article. We had a long discussion in the German Wiki, about the article and its relevance. I did not want to give up the article and worked on it during the deletion discussion. In the end I got caught in a revision trap and the article was deleted. Now I have revised it (first in english) and published it again. I hope that the article has now more encyclopedic relevance for wikipedia. (a quasi last try!) --Schnittwerk (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. One authored book is unlikely to yield WP:NAUTHOR. I didn't find any book reviews (but searching in German might be more productive); I do find it pretty plausible that the subject will eventually meet that criterion. A 2016 PhD is unlikely to meet WP:NPROF, and I see no evidence of academic impact as yet. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG nor does she appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. My search in Google Scholar found only 1 article with two citations and there's no evidence she meets any criteria at WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 04:10, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shorties Watchin' Shorties[edit]

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

A short-lived TV series on Comedy Central about shorties watching shorties. :) Joke aside, I don't think this show is notable. The article is poorly sourced, it contains the official CC website, IMDb and TV.com. None of those provide any reliability (the former is not independent and the latter two are databases which can be edited by anyone). I did a Google search and the results were not any better either. Amazon pages, TV Guide listings, other trivial mentions... Where is the notability? The Vulture page contained a tag with this show's name and I decided to check it out, in the hope that there is some reliable article on there. But nope, it was about the shows of Comedy Central where this one was mentioned. I found an article in the Dallas Observer with this title and I thought it was about the show - but nope, it was about some short film festival. The rest of the results were, like I said, Amazon pages, TV Guide listings and stuff like these. I don't see any notability around here. But prove me wrong. Maybe there are some reliable sources I am unaware of. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Non-notable TV show. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)~~ striking double nomination comment - Toughpigs (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of WP:GNG. I only found one source (from ScreenRant, a non-RS) and no sources that could take this past WP:GNG. Java Hurricane 09:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It aired on a national network, it meets the WP:GNG on that alone. Article doesn't really need further expansion and is fine in its current stub state. Nate • (chatter) 17:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nate:: Yeah, it aired on a national network. I don't doubt Comedy Central's notability, I doubt this show's notability. The article does not contain reliable sources and I haven't found one either. Can you provide some reliable sources (if you have) please? Because if there are no RS, I still think this show is not notable, even if it aired on a notable channel.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Common outcomes are we usually keep television series that have aired at least one season on a national television network, especially a primetime series like this. This will at minimum not result in a deletion but a redirect to List of programs broadcast by Comedy Central. My reading of this article is that maybe one or two extra sources are needed, but the text is fine as-is and we don't need to have an episode list unlike most of these articles. Nate • (chatter) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nate:: Yeah, I agree. It can live on as a redirect to said article, but it does not merit its own article. The text is fine indeed, it can be copied to "List of programs by Comedy Central" or whatever, but it is not notable for a stand-alone article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV and WP:NEXIST. It's typical for shows on national networks to be notable, because they get news coverage. Here's what I found so far:
- "Familiar comedians animate 'Shorties'" by Nick A. Zaino, Boston Globe (April 28, 2004)
- "Looking at Comedy Central’s Weird and Hard-to-Categorize One-Season Shows" by Liam Mathews, New York Magazine's Vulture (Sept 8, 2014) -- three paragrahps on Shorties Watchin' Shorties
- "Shorties Watchin' Shorties review" by Emily Ashby, Common Sense Media (2004)
- "Shorties Watchin' Shorties Returns on Comedy Central Oct. 28" by Sarah Baisley, Animation World Network (Oct 28, 2004)

I'll put these on the article as a "Further reading" section, so editors who want to improve the article can use them as sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:29, 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 keep. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colasanti's Tropical Gardens[edit]

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

~~I'm not convinced this has the coverage to meet WP:GNG.~~ Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't be soft deleted due to previous PROD/unPROD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A quick newspapers.com search brought up a lot of coverage on the gardens and their owner, mostly from the Windsor-Detroit area. It's clearly locally notable. The article itself needs some work and may be too promotional (hence the word weak before the word keep), but there should be enough out there to pass GNG/WP:NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to it being a frequently cited local tourist attraction and as such meeting GNG (see the link I provided upon deproding this for proof); additionally a check should have been made against the academic literature as to the academic use of the living collections. Conservatories typically supply plant samples for research that requires it (such as for DNA analysis).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The article is in need of large-scale cleanup, but this isn't in TNT territory. Java Hurricane 09:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per all comments above. Thanks, everyone. Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 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 delete and redirect to Bruno Heller. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primrose Hill Productions[edit]

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

A non notable film production company. Unsourced article with WP:BEFORE showing no evidence of reliable sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unreferenced certainly, but the subject seems notable, with three significant projects made. In this context I don't think projects "passed" are against WP:CRYSTAL - they wouldn't in say a writer's bio. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When I searched against each notable project, I couldn’t find any reliable sources at all. Have you managed to locate any? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources to take it over WP:GNG. Java Hurricane 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect imdb list Primrose Hill as a production company - https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?companies=co0265205 as well as FTIA working on productions for Warner bros so it exists but no real coverage of the company as its just a vehicle for Bruno Heller who is notable. User talk: Davidstewartharvey 15:55, 4 June 2020

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - Flori4nKT A L K 00:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson[edit]

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

Contrary to the article title, this isn't a list of books written by Jefferson, but rather a list of books about him. As such, it runs afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIB has defined the notability for a stand-alone bibliography of this type as "For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources." While I haven't looked at this article yet, the practice is generally "Bibliography of XXXX" for works about something and "PERSON bibliography" for a list of somebody's works. There's a series of {{Bibliographies of U.S. Presidents}} and several others on people like Bibliography of Napoleon and Bibliography of Ramakrishna and Bibliography of Liliʻuokalani, but I am not aware of a clear guideline outside of a projectspace essay. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Per Eddie891, this would be a wider concern than just one article. (Separately, I don't think this violates NOTDIRECTORY.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator might want to check the meaning of bibliography. The top of the bibliography section lists four books on the bibliography of Jefferson. As such, this article is clearly warranted. This is not a violation of NOTDIRECTORY. There also exists a whole navbox of articles that are bibliographies of US presidents. SD0001 (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The !voter should really check their condescending tone, too. This argument would just as well apply to lists of phone numbers simply because many such lists have been published already. As for the rest of it, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy to phone numbers is nonsense, as is the invocation of OTHERSTUFF. I'm sorry but you're just exposing how superficial your understanding of the relevant policies are. Bibliographies are a type of lists, and WP:LISTN says, I quote, Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources .... There are whole books that discuss the bibliography of Jefferson:
Fitzgerald, Carol B. (1991). Thomas Jefferson: A Bibliography (Meckler's Bibliographies of the presidents of the U.S.) 400 pages; ISBN 978-0-88736-117-3; Book

Shuffleton, Frank (1983). Thomas Jefferson: A Comprehensive, Annotated Bibliography of Writings about Him, 1826–1980, 486 pages and Thomas Jefferson, 1981–1990: An Annotated Bibliography (New York: Garland Pub., 1992) 283 pages; ISBN 0824090780
The same is echoed by WP:BIB#Notability of bibliography articles.

The existence of similar bibliographies shows solid precedent for having such articles -- that's not something to be dismissed as OTHERSTUFF, see WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. SD0001 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIR. Very few items are notable and such list does not warrant separate page. desmay (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- possibly as Bibliography on Thomas Jefferson. Bibliographies on notable topics are likely themselves to be notable. This is however only likely to be needed when it is too extensive to be included in the bio- or other WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SD0001. Java Hurricane 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Category:Bibliographies of Presidents of the United States] and far more at Category:Bibliographies of people show how common these articles are. If you don't think Wikipedia should have such articles, discuss it somewhere. Not every book listed here has its own article or is published by someone confirmed to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. Any inclusion criteria for the list should be discussed on its talk page. Dream Focus 23:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid WP:LISTN vexatious nomination. Lightburst (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has tons of Bibliographies on notable people, it's encyclopedic and helpful. But this page should be moved to Bibliography of works on Thomas Jefferson tho.★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 4 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. Again. I'm procedurally renominating the article with an editing restriction; see the forthcoming third AfD. Sandstein 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13)[edit]

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

The issues outlined in the previous deletion discussion still haven't been resolved. The article relies heavily on synthesis of sources (some reliable, others not) to reach a certain conclusion, namely that the wartime suffering of Albanians and Bosniaks in Plav and Gusinje was part of some larger massacre in which 1,800 were killed and 12,000 displaced. The killings described in this article would make this alleged massacre one of the largest of the Balkan Wars. Proponents of keeping the article during the previous discussion invariably resorted to arguing that there WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and "but it's true!". Yet, there are no non-Balkan sources that unequivocally describe a massacre as having taken place, and the entire premise thus fails WP:V.

As before, I propose a compromise solution, which is to describe the instances of forced conversions and displacement (which almost certainly took place) in the history sections of the Plav and Gusinje articles, as well as Albanians of Montenegro and Bosniaks of Montenegro. This way, we aren't falling into the original research and synthesis trap that currently plagues this problem-riddled article. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Amanuensis Balkanicus: Your support is already assumed, there is zero reason for you to add this.★Trekker (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly selective merge while reviewing the DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13)), I unfortunately found that several of the sources do not meet WP:RS. I think that the article creator is acting in good faith but it's important to use high quality sources when writing about ethnic conflicts. b uidhe 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article creators are acting in good faith and many of their contributions to Wikipedia have been extremely positive, which is commendable. I wouldn't categorize this as a WP:HOAX. But as Wikipedians we have to abide by certain parameters, including WP:V, and do our best to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Unfortunately, this article doesn't pass that threshold. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be copying the arguments about the bibliography from the previous AfD (with some changes), because not much has changed:

The sources do discuss this topic extensively, so it is notable. I will take some time to discuss some of the RS claims about the article, not because that discussion is related to this procedure, but because I just want to reply to the allegations by Balkanicus. Rexhep Dedushaj, is a historian from Gusinje whose book is on its 4th edition offline. It is regularly used as bibliography by historians like Marenglen Verli, member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania in his work about Plav/Plav-Gusinje/Gucia (it has full bibliographical details - I used the same). Premović's article was published in Almanah, which is a peer-reviewed journal that is hosted online on CEEOL, a leading provider of academic e-journals and e-books in the Humanities and Social Sciences from and about Central and Eastern Europe., from where I got the citation. If Balkanicus wants to discuss about CEEOL or Almanah or Premović, there's RSN about that.

The two sources in English don't just "mention" these events. The BalkanInsight article was written specifically about this topic. Full quote: More than 2,000 Bosniaks and ethnic Albanians prayed together to mark the 100th anniversary of what they allege was genocide against their ancestors. The collective religious ritual took place on Tuesday, in the municipality of Plav in eastern Montenegro, to mark the anniversary of mass killings of Bosniaks and Albanians nearby 100 years ago. Bosniak organisations claim that more than 1,800 Muslims from Plav and the nearby municipality of Gusinje were killed and more than 12,000 of them forcibly converted to Christianity during the 1912-13 Balkan wars.

Sabina Pacariz, also in the bibliography of the article writes: President Filip Vujanović joined the cerenomy, where he stated the crimes performed in Plav and Gusinje are the dark side of the Montenegrin history and later she also writes: On 5 March 2013, in a joint organisation of the Islamic Community of Montenegro together with the Islamic Community and Cultural Centre of Plav and Gusinje in New York, Janazah—a funeral prayer in the sports hall in Plav was organised. Under the name 'Vakat zuluma' (the times of tyranny), the prayer was performed to mark the passing of 100 years from the forceful conversions and killing of Albanians and Bosniaks in Plav and Gusinje in the years 1912-1913. Approximately 2,500 Albanians and Bosniaks from Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and from the usa joined the funeral prayer.

Elsie-Destani have published documents from the Balkan Wars and WWI about the situation of the Albanians in the Balkans. The fact that there are extensive primary documents that mention even the names of those killed in these events only proves its notability even more, it doesn't diminish it.

Full quote from Galaty, Michael; Lafe, Ols; Lee, Wayne; Tafilica, Zamir (2013). Light and Shadow: Isolation and Interaction in the Shala Valley of Northern Albania. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press. ISBN 1931745714. which I still haven't had the time to add in the article: Warfield's letter also addressed the claim, made at the time by Edith Durham, that the Montenegrins were persecuting Albanians who lived in their territory and driving them out of their villages. He reported that 2000 Albanians had come over the mountains from Gusinje and Plav and were refugees in Shkodra. [William Warfield was Director of the Red Cross Unit in Albania in the Balkan Wars]
Full quote (to establish the notability of the event - not as a source to be used because secondary modern bibliography, already in the article, explains the same event in much detail): In the primary sources of the era about the region this massacre appears in many of them. Rebecca West was a famed travel writer of her age. In the book, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon she specifically [link to blacklisted site removed] writes] just about the village of Plav (not the region as a whole): An unfortunate contretemps occurred here during the Balkan War. When Montenegro captured the village of Plav from the Turks in 1912, they were greatly aided by a local Moslem priest, who joined the Orthodox Church and was appointed a major in the Montenegrin Army. His first action when left unsupervised was to hold a court-martial on his former congregation and to shoot all those who refused to be baptized. They numbered, it is said, five hundred. She is referring to Mulla Hajro Basic/Basha/Bashiqi who changed his named Balsa Balsic for a certain amount of money and was used by the Montenegrin army as a "local judge" to condemn many locals to death.
News reports in the local press: Memorial of the first person who was killed in the massacre.[26]. List of the 700 who were killed in total in Previ [27]
About the forceful conversions and the beginning of the events: Kolë Krasniqi, Islamist Extremism in Kosovo and the Countries of the Region, p.19
About the total number of casualties: Jusuf Bajraktari, The Kosova issue--a historic and current problem: symposium held in Tirana on April 15-16, 1993 Full quote: In 1913, 4 000 Albanians in the vicinity of Peje and Gjakove alone, and 8 000 in Plave and Guci, were shot after refusing to renounce their Moslem or Catholic religion and their Albanian nationality. This was published by the Academy of Sciences of Albania. You can certainly claim that in the article it should be used with attribution to the author, but notability of the topic has been established here.

Conclusion: Keep The existing bibliography establishes notability beyond doubt.The claims about the humber of casualties range from 1,800 to 8,000. About the 700 killed in Previ Pass there is a complete list of the victims This is an event which a)is discussed in bibliography b)is mentioned in diplomatic documents of the era c)influences mass events in Montenegro and the diaspora from that country d)is an event about which the President of Montenegro has apologized about.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Maleschreiber (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Maleschreiber (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: 1,800-8,000 killed in Plav-Gusinje is not an WP:EXTRAORDINARY number of casualties for the Balkans Wars. The total number of killings of just Albanians reaches up to 200,000. If we add to that all the other communities that suffered throughout the Balkans, the total number is even higher, so 1,800-8,000 in Plav-Gusinje is not something out of the ordinary.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address your points one by one:

Dedushaj is a primary schoolteacher and political activist. We've been over this. Moreover, just because he is cited by a scholar such as Verli doesn't mean Wikipedia should treat him as a WP:RS.
As I said in the previous discussion, Balkan Insight and Pacariz are undoubtedly WP:RS. However, the articles don't unequivocally say that a massacre took place. Those sources merely report this as a claim made by Bosniak special interest groups.
Elsie is merely reprinting primary source material. This doesn't get the article past the threshold of WP:V either, see WP:PRIMARY.
Again, Galaty is a WP:RS. But he doesn't mention any kind of massacre, only that 2,000 refugees had fled to Scutari (WP:SYNTH). Feel free to add it to Plav, Gusinje and Shkodër's history sections.
Rebecca West is another primary source, not a secondary one. This doesn't stand up under WP:V.
Local newspapers are not academic, scholarly publications.
Krasniqi mentions an imam from Plav who converted to Orthodox Christianity and had his cousins killed for refusing to do the same. Again, WP:SYNTH. How does this = Plav-Gusinje massacre? Feel free to add it to Plav's history section.
Bajraktari's remarks were made at a symposium in Tirana in 1993, at a time when relations between Albanians and Serbs over Kosovo were strained to say the least. Balkan scholars weren't exactly paragons of academic excellence in the 1990s. On the contrary, the so-called scholarly institutions of all these countries were plagued by hackery, malpractice and nationalistic dick-measuring. I fail to see how this is WP:RS.

Side note: Are you seriously arguing that 200k Albanians were killed by the Serbian and Montenegrin armies? Even the Albanian primary sources from 1913 don't report a figure in excess of 25k. I've seen some WP:FRINGE claims on Wikipedia before, but that is way out there. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that the range of the claims about the total number of killings of Albanians reaches up to 200k in total (not just by Serbo-Montenegrin armies), so 1,800 dead in Plav-Gusinje a very densely populated area at that time, is nothing out of the ordinary. The imam paid by the Montenegrin army was later convicted by a military court for his actions. These events are part of the official military history of Montenegro. His actions are extensively described by Dedushaj.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we're going off topic here, but which reliably published, peer-reviewed, non-Balkan academic source unequivocally claims that 200k Albanians were killed in the Balkan Wars? If true, this would be a slaughter larger in scale and in scope than the Bosnian genocide and four times larger than all civilian casualties inflicted by the Chetniks during World War II. It would be almost on par with the genocide of Serbs in the NDH between 1941 and 1945 (which left 300k dead). 8k dead in Plav-Gusinje would make this the single largest massacre in Southeastern Europe until the Bleiburg massacre 30 years later (30-50k dead) and on the same scale as Srebrenica in 1995. You would think Western academics and scholars would have written extensively about a massacre of such momentous magnitude had it actually taken place. Alas, they have not. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare single, localized massacres like the Srebrenica genocide with a series of massacres which happened over a period of time. You also can't go on to frame the question about the upper limit. Why are Balkan academic sources excluded? I'm pretty sure that the upper limit in Albanian academia reaches up to 200,000 and it should be carefully attributed, but general estimates easily surpass the 100,000+ limit. As for individual massacres have you read the only primary source of the period? It's the Report of the International Commission on the Balkan Wars. The series of massacres described by the international committee reaches up to tens of thousands. As for single massacres, after the Balkan Wars: in 1919, 700 were killed in Rozhaja and in 1924, 600 were killed in the Šahovići massacre in nearby Kolasin. What makes it so extraordinary to you that more than 1,800 people were executed in Plav-Gusinje just a few years before these events?--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I saw some claims about alleged massacres committed by the Montenegrin army during and immediately after the First Balkan War, I decided to investigate the topics and created two articles about two Montenegrin officials who allegedly committed/ordered those massacres. They are Radomir Vešović and Avram Cemović. I carefully investigated the issue and concluded that such claims did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is the request of WP:NOTABILITY. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment for closing admin:Antidiskriminator is an editor who has been permanently blocked on Serbian wikipedia and a few days ago I nominated for deletion an extreme POVFORK he had written about Demonization of the Serbs. It was (obviously) deleted. Now, this editor decides to comment here. Antidiskriminator wrote the article Avram Cemović with very bad bibliography only in order to write an article that would dispute the events of forced conversion (which is undisputed even by the nominator of the article).

Also, there is nothing "alleged" about either the killings or the forced conversion. There was a military court which put to trial part of the perpetrators and they were convicted. This is explained in detail in the article. --Maleschreiber (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maleschreiber, please don't make ad hominem attacks on other users. If you have a beef with Antid, take it elsewhere. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an ad hominem to explain someone's editing history. I haven't accused Antidiskriminator of anything. He is permanently blocked in Serbian wikipedia and he did write just a few days ago an article about "Demonization and Satanization of Serbs" which I nominated for deletion and it was deleted.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this editor decides to comment here. Incorrect. I wrote a comment (diff) at Template:Did you know nominations/Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13) before Maleschreiber folllowed my edits and nominated for deletion article that I wrote link. This comment is aimed to create false narrative about me so it can be used at report against me, in the absence of real valid arguments. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're right, Antid. The article was nominated for deletion less than an hour after you left your comment. I wonder if this is a case of WP:WIKISTALKING and disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT? In any event, this deletion page is no place for such polemics. Both of you, please take your beef elsewhere. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AB, I was already discussing with Ant. on Talk:Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia (my first comment was on 06:55 12 May) and then on 14:55 12 May Antidiskriminator decided to comment on the DYKN). I didn't just learn about Ant.'s activity. I have nominated another article on AfD a few months ago too in which he was involved and it was deleted too. My comment stands correct and the closing admin is now aware of the editor's activity and content history. Now, we can certainly move on.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you really wanted to explain my editing history you could have pointed to multiple article on early 20th century Albanian related topics I created, including:

Some of the articles on early 20th century Albanian related topics I created

And many other articles on related topics. That is what should be taken in consideration when evaluating my !vote. Now, we can certainly move on. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry I've been gone for awhile, but I'm a bit confused and can't quickly find the answer in all this text. Is there something that changed since the the previous AfD? Thanks all. --Calthinus (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per lack of coverage in reliable sources. As Amanuensis Balkanicus explains very clearly, there is simply no mention of this rather large massacre in reliable sources. As far as I can see, we have activist schoolteachers, collections of primary documents, and an obscure symposium in Albania in 1993. Yet, had such a large massacre taken place, one would expect at least one modern scholar to have documented it. The Balkans are a heavily studied area; there are dozens of scholars who focus on Balkan history and politics. Surely one of them would have verified the existence of this massacre and put his name to that? Maleschreiber has had plenty of time to find reliable sources that document this purported massacre, but has failed to do so, likely because such sources do not exist (certainly not through lack of effort or motivation). The only reliable sources (BI and Pacariz) speak of commemorations by activists, but do not document the existence of the massacre itself. They are misused. I also find arguments of the type "there is no coverage because this was a small massacre" to be absolutely ridiculous and contrived. 2,000 killed is not a small number, it is a HUGE number (comparable to the 8,000 killed in Srebrenica). To suggest that this was a minor event and that WP:EXTRAORDINARY does not apply is highly intellectually dishonest. Khirurg (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The President of Montenegro has apologized for these events and the commemoration in Plav-Gusinje involved the whole area not just "some activists". 2,500 people in total participated.

Full quote from BI: More than 2,000 Bosniaks and ethnic Albanians prayed together to mark the 100th anniversary of what they allege was genocide against their ancestors. The collective religious ritual took place on Tuesday, in the municipality of Plav in eastern Montenegro, to mark the anniversary of mass killings of Bosniaks and Albanians nearby 100 years ago. Bosniak organisations claim that more than 1,800 Muslims from Plav and the nearby municipality of Gusinje were killed and more than 12,000 of them forcibly converted to Christianity during the 1912-13 Balkan wars.

Sabina Pacariz writes: President Filip Vujanović joined the cerenomy, where he stated the crimes performed in Plav and Gusinje are the dark side of the Montenegrin history and later she also writes: On 5 March 2013, in a joint organisation of the Islamic Community of Montenegro together with the Islamic Community and Cultural Centre of Plav and Gusinje in New York, Janazah—a funeral prayer in the sports hall in Plav was organised. Under the name 'Vakat zuluma' (the times of tyranny), the prayer was performed to mark the passing of 100 years from the forceful conversions and killing of Albanians and Bosniaks in Plav and Gusinje in the years 1912-1913. Approximately 2,500 Albanians and Bosniaks from Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and from the usa joined the funeral prayer.

How is it that they don't refer to the events explicitly?--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior of Balkan politicians is meaningless as far as whether the event happened or not. For years Serbian politicians refused to acknolwedge Srebrenica, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Regarding BI, did you see the part where it says "of what they allege was genocide..."? BI does not endorse the view that a massacre took place. Pacariz only describes the commemoration. Nowhere does she endorse the view that a massacre actually took place. Face it, you don't have a single reliable source that says a massacre did indeed take place (after what I imagine must have been some very frantic searching). Where is the description of the massacre? Where are the bodies? 2,000 dead is a lot of bodies. Why isn't there a single scholar that investigated this "massacre", as has been the case for so many others? Khirurg (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But there is:

Premović, Marijan (2013). "VАSOJEVIĆI PREMА PLАVU I GUSINJU [Vasojevići against Plav and Gusinje]". Almanah. 54–56. OCLC 1088898622.
Zejnullahu, Adem (2006). "KËNGËT POPULLORE PËR KONVERTIMIN E DHUNSHËM TË SHQIPTARËVE NË FENË ORTODOKSE NGA FQINJËT SLLAVË [Folk songs about the violent conversion of Albanians to Christian Orthodoxy by their Slavic neighbours]". Gjurmime Albanologjike. 36.
These are both articles written in academic journals and cover extensively the events. Zejnullahu (2006) is also very interesting because he has written about how the memory of these events has been expressed in folk songs in the region.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Almanah.com" and a...collection of folk songs (in Albanian). Wow, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The desperation is evident. You have written 20 kb of text [28] to try to save this article, and not a single reliable source. Khirurg (talk)

There were military trials about these events and in 2012 memorials were erected by the descendants of those killed: "Pranë memorialit të te pushkatuarve të parë më 1912, pas okupimit të Plavë Gucisë nga Mali i Zi (foto)". Plava-Gucia Sot. Retrieved 6 May 2020.

The President of Montenegro in a public ceremony recognized this event, not a random politician. I don't understand why you would think that this is not important in deciding notability. So you think that the president of the country just randomly recognized publicly an event that never happened?

BI says: More than 2,000 Bosniaks and ethnic Albanians prayed together to mark the 100th anniversary of what they allege was genocide against their ancestors. The collective religious ritual took place on Tuesday, in the municipality of Plav in eastern Montenegro, to mark the anniversary of mass killings of Bosniaks and Albanians nearby 100 years ago. BI explicitly says that these were mass killings and uses the verb "allege" to refer to whether they can also be called genocide. The fact that these were mass killings is written in BI's "voice".--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're just recycling the same discredited sources over and over. Find me one, just one scholarly source that investigates this purported massacre (as opposed to sources that merely mention the commemorations of something), and I will change my vote. This would have been the largest massacre in the Balkan Wars (let alone the fact that is unlikely that the entire Plav-Gusinje area even had that many people in total at the time). Surely there are are sources that investigated this? Where are they? Khirurg (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As user Maleschreiber demonstrated, the article is backed by enough sources. Furthermore, modern political recognition demonstrates that the events are significant and undisputed. The article should be maintained and expanded. N.Hoxha (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: wasn't there just recently an AfD about this article that was closed? What were the changes made since then to justify the premature reopening of another Afd? N.Hoxha (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is well-cited in both Albanian and Bosnian sources. No POW here. --Fa alk (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a single RS provided in this article. For certain it does not pass the threshold. No wonder DYKN was a straight failure.Alexikoua (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Pacariz (2013) who was published by Brill RS?.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pacariz is RS indeed, but unfortunately does not mention any event known as such.Alexikoua (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabina Pacariz writes: President Filip Vujanović joined the cerenomy, where he stated the crimes performed in Plav and Gusinje are the dark side of the Montenegrin history and later she also writes: On 5 March 2013, in a joint organisation of the Islamic Community of Montenegro together with the Islamic Community and Cultural Centre of Plav and Gusinje in New York, Janazah—a funeral prayer in the sports hall in Plav was organised. Under the name 'Vakat zuluma' (the times of tyranny), the prayer was performed to mark the passing of 100 years from the forceful conversions and killing of Albanians and Bosniaks in Plav and Gusinje in the years 1912-1913. Approximately 2,500 Albanians and Bosniaks from Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and from the usa joined the funeral prayer. I have placed the same quote three times. I hope this time you read it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me but the word 'massacre' or any equivalent term is absent in the quote you provided, neither is there a description that warrants a 'massacre' article as you insist. It might have occurred but sources can't confirm this.Alexikoua (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just argued that the article should be deleted because one of the sources describes it as forceful conversions and killing of Albanians and Bosniaks, instead of massacres. That's an argument for starting a move discussion for the descriptive title which represents the events best, not for asking for the article to be deleted. In the past days after the replies against !delete, the argument in favor of !delete has moved from "this never happened, so it should be deleted" to "this may have happened but there's no in-depth discussion so it should be deleted" and now to "this may have happened, but it refers to "killings" instead of "massacres", so it should be deleted". The 2nd nomination should be retracted.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference 'forceful conversions and killing' does not equal 'massacre', but even the former description related to the claimed event. It's really sad that this is the only one RS you can provide here. However, feel free to make additional research on the subject and always follow wp:RS carefully.Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that call it a genocide and the descendants of those killed started in 2012 a campaign for it to be recognized as genocide. A CENTURY OF MONTENEGRIN GENOCIDE ON BOSNIAKS AND ALBANIANS IN PLAV AND GUSINJE. Massacre is one of the many descriptive titles and it's certainly the less POV.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a decent wp:RS and I have the feeling that sources like instituteforgenocide.org can't be helpful on that.Alexikoua (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I found a paper published in Almanah in 2017. It is interesing because it highlights that these events were censored by Yugoslav historiography up to the 1980s. Rastoder (2017) also explains in detail many of the executions. Rastoder has a great job of gathering archival material, government orders and military dispatches about the events. How can some editors for the 2nd time say "this never happened" or "this happened, but isn't notable enough for a standalone article" when many historians have dedicated so much effort to accurately document them? --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almanah.com is not a peer-reviewed journal and does not meet the criteria for WP:RS. Khirurg (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion There are several reliable sources that mention crimes committed there at the time. For instance, Zuzana Poláčková and Pieter van Duin ("Montenegro Old and New: History, Politics, Culture, and the People") p. 72 mention 500 Muslims killed after they refused to convert. The authors cite as sources Malcolm, "Kosovo" pp. 253-5 and Judah, "The Serbs", pp. 85-6. Another source that touches the topic is [29]. The article needs work, much work to be done, though to addreess several issues it has. The nom has not provided any viable rationale why the article should be nominated for deletion a second time. After some work is done, researching and adding more sources such as the ones posted above, then it can be better evaluated if the article can be merged or its topic be expanded to include closely related events such as later similar crimes in the same places. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is published by "islamawareness.net" [30] (presumably the reason you did not insert a link), and the second is a primary document from 1920. Still no modern secondary reliable sources verifying the existence of this "massacre". Khirurg (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg, you're misinformed or maybe you haven't read many of the full quotes which have been placed like Pacariz (2013): Under the name 'Vakat zuluma' (the times of tyranny), the prayer was performed to mark the passing of 100 years from the forceful conversions and killing of Albanians and Bosniaks in Plav and Gusinje in the years 1912-1913. Ktrimi is quoting a paper published in Studia Politica Slovaca a journal of the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAS). Zuzana Poláčková and Pieter van Duin write(the link is from the SAS site): Those who refused to convert, including some Catholics, were tortured or shot, for example a well-known Catholic priest who was killed for refusing to make the Orthodox sign of the cross. A report from 1914 of an international commission of enquiry set up by the Carnegie Endowment described how in 1913 the Albanians were crushed in Kosovo and how "unarmed and innocent populations were massacred by the Serbo-Montenegrin soldiery, with a view to the entire transformation of the ethnic character of regions inhabited exclusively by Albanians." When Plav in northern Albania was occupied by the Montenegrins, 500 Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity were shot. I'll add that to the article's bibliography, thank you @Ktrimi991:!. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maleschreiber, also take a look at Dietmar Müller. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New source in the article's bibliography. Dietmar Müller writes: The Montenegrin integration policy was characterized by a measure that was obviously not followed by the Serbian side: the forced baptism of Albanian and Slavic Muslims in the cities of Plav, Gusinje, Pec, and Djakovo. In an action agreed between several ministries, of which King Nikola Petrovic Njegos apparently also knew, 12,000 Muslims were forcibly christianized in the first two cities by February 1913 and 800 people killed who did not want to undergo this procedure. Then followed Catholic Albanians from Pec and Dakovo. Only when Catholic Albanians from Pec and Dakovo were included did the forced baptisms have to be stopped under pressure from Austria-Hungary.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Maleschreiber: I am not "misinformed" at all. Fact is, you haven't found a single reliable source that unequivocally documents this massacre. All your sources so far are highly obscure Balkan sources, all from countries with an axe to grind against Serbia/Montenegro. I just don't buy it that international Balkan scholars miss what would have been one of the biggest massacres of the war. It just doesn't add up. Khirurg (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just above this comment, there are two full quotes from sources added today in the article's content and bibliography. Zuzana Poláčková and Pieter van Duin (2013) wrote their paper for Studia Politica Slovaca a journal of the Slovak Academy of Sciences (SAS), while Dietmar Müller (2005) is also an international Balkans scholar whose book was published by the well-known German academic publishing house Harrassowitz Verlag. Are these "highly obscure Balkan sources" (what's a "highly obscure Balkan source" really? A source either is RS or not, whether we personally know their work or not, is irrelevant) or "from countries with an axe to grind against Serbia/Montenegro" (this isn't even an argument about RS, but a personal attack against scholars, so you're into WP:BLP territory here if you're actually saying that for any of these scholars)? --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, it is clear that citations have been adequately recruited from both Balkan and non-Balkan (Muller for one) sources. What needs to stop is crude nationalized accusations based on scholars coming from "countries with an axe to grind with Serbia/Montenegro" (who has an axe to grind with tiny Montenegro? Aside from Serbian individuals who think it should be part of Serbia and Montenegrins are one people, not many people let alone entire countries... and this is a page about stuff that happened a century ago). As for coverage, to be honest I still have to examine the matter. --Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there are plenty of people with axes to grind and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, expecially here. For instance, if you actually look at the contribs log of all of those who voted "Keep". A pattern emerges, and it's pretty obvious what's going on here: coordinated ethnic bloc voting, as with every such discussion nowadays. Khirurg (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you love talking about this. Never mind how it could just as well apply to the other side ... or the total lack of evidence other than the alleged ethnicities of other users. --Calthinus (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the new sources has significant coverage that would count towards WP:GNG... b uidhe 07:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, passing mentions are just not going to cut it. Thanks for pointing that out. Khirurg (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per lack of coverage in RS. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs input by more people Needs input by more people uninvolved in Balkans issues.ed in Balkans issues.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not with these sources. I need to see real coverage in independent sources because issues like this are too politically-charged to rely upon partisan accounts. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many of the sources do you consider to be "too politically-charged"? I'm asking that because you were one of the few editors who voted !keep when I nominated for deletion Demonization of the Serbs - in fact, all the !delete in this AfD are from editors who when I nominated "Demonization of the Serbs" tried to !keep it. I've expanded this article which I didn't create in the first place, because it is a very notable subject about the Plav-Gusinje/Plava-Gucia region. I'll accept whatever decision the community ultimately makes, but it has to be part of an actual assessment of the subject. It strikes me as very contradictory in terms of policy judgment how the people who when I nominated an obvious and extreme POVFORK about "Demonization/Satanization" thought that it should be kept are the same editors who think that this article should be deleted.

Nonetheless, I'll reply to your request. The Bibliography section lists 13 sources. The first sources which were already included in the article have been extensively discussed above, but I want to mention some of the newer ones and I also need a clarification about which ones you consider to not be RS or "too politically-charged":

Zuzana Poláčková/Peter van Duin published their paper in Studia Politica Slovaca, a journal of the Slovak Academy of Sciences and Arts

Dietmar Müller is an international scholar, published by the Harrassowitz Verlag

Kolë Krasniqi, a university professor, published by Springer Nature--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Maleschreiber (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is which sources say what. In that other AfD, I felt that there were sufficient non-Balkan sources making the case that the Serbs were demonized. Those sources said so directly. Here, you have Balkan people with a dog in the fight alleging stuff. Regardless of what outlet published the material, I'd have a hard time believing any Slav on the question of a massacre. Müller doesn't say there was a massacre. There were certainly forced conversations wherein some people were killed and, as you discuss with Alexikoua, maybe there should have been a rename discussion. I can't say that an article about violence being called a massacre should be kept if there was no clear consensus of a massacre, although the forced conversions and violence probably did happen. Do you want me to !vote keep because something happened but we can't be sure independent academics call it a massacre although Wikipedia claims so in the article's name? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography in very certain terms describes that hundreds to thousands were killed. Müller writes The Montenegrin integration policy was characterized by a measure that was obviously not followed by the Serbian side: the forced baptism of Albanian and Slavic Muslims in the cities of Plav, Gusinje, Pec, and Djakovo. In an action agreed between several ministries, of which King Nikola Petrovic Njegos apparently also knew, 12,000 Muslims were forcibly christianized in the first two cities by February 1913 and 800 people killed who did not want to undergo this procedure. Then followed Catholic Albanians from Pec and Dakovo. Only when Catholic Albanians from Pec and Dakovo were included did the forced baptisms have to be stopped under pressure from Austria-Hungary. The other sources describe the trials which were held after the events for some of the officers involved and how today in Montenegro the President of the country recognize these events as the dark side of the history of Montenegro. I renamed the article to Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-1913) from Previ Pass massacre based on what bibliography says. In my opinion, it's very pedantic and irrelevant to argue that an article should be deleted because in picking the title one editor - based on sources that described how many hundreds of people were killed - picked the title "Massacres in X area in Y timeline". It's a reasonable title, which if anyone considers to be wrong, they could start a move discussion, but nobody can argue that the article should get deleted because a source says 800 people were killed without a reference to the exact term massacre.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"nobody can argue that the article should get deleted because a source says 800 people were killed without a reference to the exact term massacre" That's precisely the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument about a possible rename which could be Killings and Forced Conversion in Plav-Gusinje in 1912-1913. I picked another descriptive title among the many that could be used. There is no "correct" title about events which haven't been assigned one in historiography. Many hundreds up to thousands of people were killed between the end of 1912 and the spring of 1913 in Plav-Gusinje during a forced conversion campaign which resulted in 12,000 people temporarily becoming Orthodox against their will. This campaign ended with the intervention of Austria-Hungary, which forced the Montenegrin king to proclaim freedom of religion again in the area. It's reasonable to name the killing of 800> people in an organized state-planned campaign as massacre(s). Many historical events don't have a "correct" title which is the prevailing one in historiography. Debates about "correct" titles of events can't be turned into debates about the historicity/notability of the events, which undoubtedly happened.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained why islamawareness.net should be considered a reliable source. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be improved but that is not reason for deletion when we have a notable topic. Sadsadas (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES aren't valid arguments. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AB, there are many full quotes of WP:RS throughout this discussion. Claiming that bibliography doesn't exist when presented with full quotes is itself not a valid argument. You made the same claim a month ago when you first nominated this article to AfD. Many sources/full quotes later, you're making the same claim, but haven't assessed the sources themselves.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources perfectly reflect what happened to the people from the region of Plav and Gusinje/Plava and Gucia. I don't see a reason why this article should be completely deleted since we can all agree that it represents a dark period for the people of this region, which should not be forgotten.Crazydude1912 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are synthesized to reach a conclusion that no WP:RS reaches on its own, in violation of WP:SYNTH. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Once again, people having issues with the articles POW or its general quality is not reason for deletion. If the topic passes GNG then it passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@*Treker: WP:ITSNOTABLE. Also, POV isn't one of the arguments that have been made in favour of deletion. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources and this article doesn't meet either of those thresholds. On the contrary, it synthesizes multiple sources (some reliable, most not) to reach the conclusion that a massacre of thousands of people took place. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both Sadsadas & Crazydude1912 are not uninvolved in Balkans issues. Their userpage makes quite clear their national background. Per Sadstein's relisting comment their votes should be cancelled. Otherwise I assume "all" users can vote again.Alexikoua (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Neither you nor the nominator seem "uninvolved" in Balkan issues either. Let the admins decide which side is wrong like all the other AFDs. This discussion seems to be plagued by POV from both sides here, and as such an damin should have final say. A competend admin can see if someone has tried to "vote" twice or whatever.★Trekker (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, an admin can see who is uninvolved and who isn't in this topic and each opinion is judged accordingly (not on the basis of a !vote, but on the basis of an !argument). Calling someone "involved" because of their "national background" and calling for their opinions to be "canceled" because you disagree with them doesn't promote community procedures. Anyone who hasn't made a comment here, can do that. It's incomprehensible to me that Alexikoua thinks that because editors who hadn't been involved in this discussion or the previous AfD about "Demonization of the Serbs" (in which all the !delete were involved including Alexikoua), gave their opinion, Alexikoua him/herself can "vote again". I don't understand the point of the above comment, but this AfD needs a discussion which focuses on the article not on the national backgrounds of editors.

I do want to reply to AB's claim that there is "SYNTH" about the casualties in the article though- which I think is an argument which returns the discussion to its original subject and as such at least allows for a real discussion to happen. The full paragraph is There is variation in the estimates about the total number of those killed in the massacres and those who underwent forced reconversion. (..) The total number of those forced to convert reached 12,000 and 800 who refused to do so were executed (..) [15] In Plav, a total of about 500 who refused to convert were executed.[16] Modern Bosniak organizations maintain that more than 1,800 were killed (..) [17] Mark Krasniqi of the Academy of Sciences of Kosovo has placed the total number of Albanians killed during the massacres at 8,000.[18] Besides the need for RS, significant coverage in GNG means that no original research is needed to extract the content. No OR is needed to extract the content about the casualties and RS is used (Müller, Van Duin, Polackova). There's well-sourced attribution of particular claims wherever that is necessary. I won't post full quotes again, I've already placed 4 times Müller who concludes that 12,000 Muslims were forcibly christianized in the first two cities by February 1913 and 800 people killed who did not want to undergo this procedure If we're going to continue having this discussion, new arguments should be put forward for !delete, but repetition of the old ones doesn't highlight anything new. It just causes confusion because anyone can see in the article that nobody has "synthesized multiple sources to reach the conclusion that thousands of people were killed".--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, an admin can see that all but one of the keep votes are from the same ethnic bloc. And any admin can see that the statement the AfD about "Demonization of the Serbs" (in which all the !delete were involved including Alexikoua) is blatantly false. You're not helping your credibility here. Khirurg (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't arbitrarily categorize editors based on their national backgrounds. Here's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs. Any closing admin can review that. Can you instead of putting forward comments about 'ethnic blocs" in this AfD focus on its content?--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about you strike the blatant falsehood that the AfD about "Demonization of the Serbs" (in which all the !delete were involved including Alexikoua). As for focuing on content, I've already shown this purported massacre is not substantiated by the literature. I can understand you really don't like me pointing out inconvenient facts, but someone's got to do it. Every recent AfD and RfC in this topic area has been successfully is plagued by an apparently well-coordinated ethnic bloc that never fails to show up and vote along party lines. Khirurg (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is there for anyone to review who in that AfD who voted "keep" and even "speedy keep" (you) for a blatant POVFORK, here has been arguing for !delete. I've been pointing this out since the middle stage of the AfD..and then it got relisted because it was judged that there was no sufficient outside input. Every single !delete comment which followed the nominator's argument here, was a !keep there. Which !delete comment here wasn't involved as a !keep comment there? I stand to be proven wrong. And I highlight this because of the highly contradictory assessment of those two articles by the !delete here.
I've already posted quotes upon quotes upon quotes, so it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part to keep arguing for deletion. Also, don't make unsubstantiated accusations against other editors based on their origins.
But just to help the readers in order to understand the magnitude of WP:IDONTLIKEIT of the claim that it is "not substantiated by literature", Zuzana Poláčková and Pieter van Duin write: Those who refused to convert, including some Catholics, were tortured or shot, for example a well-known Catholic priest who was killed for refusing to make the Orthodox sign of the cross. A report from 1914 of an international commission of enquiry set up by the Carnegie Endowment described how in 1913 the Albanians were crushed in Kosovo and how "unarmed and innocent populations were massacred by the Serbo-Montenegrin soldiery, with a view to the entire transformation of the ethnic character of regions inhabited exclusively by Albanians." When Plav in northern Albania was occupied by the Montenegrins, 500 Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity were shot and Müller writes The Montenegrin integration policy was characterized by a measure that was obviously not followed by the Serbian side: the forced baptism of Albanian and Slavic Muslims in the cities of Plav, Gusinje, Pec, and Djakovo. In an action agreed between several ministries, of which King Nikola Petrovic Njegos apparently also knew, 12,000 Muslims were forcibly christianized in the first two cities by February 1913 and 800 people killed who did not want to undergo this procedure. --Maleschreiber (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Maleschreiber (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Maleschreiber (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - If there are reliable sources, any instance of genocide is notable enough to be included and page created, than. In recent months, on several occasions, I have come across individual editors who reassured me that there must be only a RS, and creation of such page is valid, and that judicial and/or multilateral international declarations are in no way only and/or necessary for validation and acceptance of the genocide occurrence, regardless of scope, location or era, and page creations, unless its really, really recent happening, so it's not covered thoroughly.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC) corrected--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional remark - I reserve the right to change my mind and/or be wrong. I am not that familiar with specific Balkan Wars war-crimes, which is, in my case, evident in this example, and especially regarding RS.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:42, 6 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. Sandstein 12:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Family Party[edit]

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

Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving 465 votes and barely any notable coverage before or after general election. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe. doktorb _words^deeds 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the above and think this page should be deleted. The party has never held any elected representatives at any level of government and out of the two candidates they have stood have achieved less than 1% of the vote in both cases. This does not seem to be notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Helper201 (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed political party. Nate • (chatter) 17:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political parties like this are ten a penny in UK politics, which in my view overvalues them. When a non-notable failed candidate forms a non-notable party, and that party goes on to do pretty much nothing at the ballot box, we don't need an article about it. Ironically, "not notable" is the nicest thing I can think of to say about this party. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This party is active, has a website and has stood candidates in elections. It plans to stand at least 8 candidates at the next Scottish Parliament Elections. It has quite a big website for a party of it's size. I think that it will become even more notable by the 2021 Scottish Parliament Elections, and deleting this page would just be counter-productive. Also, even if it isn't that notable, all the sources are reliable, it's completely neutral and meets the high standards of very good wikipedia pages. Dylan109 (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan109: Thanks Dylan. "It plans to stand at least 8 candidates..." runs against WP:CRYSTAL. If they "plan", that's something we all do. We can plan to lose weight. We can plan to tell our boss what we truly think of them. We can plan to visit Greece on holiday. But planning is not notable until a) it's achieved, and b) something important or notable or lasting happens as a result. If the SFP stand and the results are remarkable, notable or historic, then we can perhaps find a place in an article. But so far their record suggests otherwise, and it's only on past records, not future plans, that we should be hosting articles on Wikipedia. Having a big website doesn't matter. doktorb _words^deeds 06:29, 5 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. Sandstein 13:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Held[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines by the looks of things. Worth noting article is created by a single-purpose account and article is mostly self-promotional filler. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 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. Sandstein 13:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ercan Gündoğan[edit]

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

With only one publication having more than single-digit citations in Google Scholar [31] he does not appear to pass WP:PROF. This has been tagged as needing better sources since 2011 and after a recent trim it has none, but was deemed ineligible for BLPPROD because it used to have an archived link demonstrating some minor editorial contributions. It has also been tagged for COI editing since 2018, based on a close similarity between the names of its subject and one of its primary editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We rarely keep articles about associate professors, and I don't see anything here that comes close to a keep argument for a full prof. Comment that the BLPPROD was improperly removed, as there are still no sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established by either his university position, research, any awards, or media coverage Pi (Talk to me!) 00:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 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. czar 05:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Nurtinie Abdul Aziz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Zoodino (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a beauty queen or anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 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 snow keep. A non-admin closure. Banana Republic (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen (slang)[edit]

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

This article has too many issues with jargon and comes across as a something more appropriate for cataloging on Encyclopedia Dramatica and Know Your Meme. This is not to discount its notability, but rather at present (or maybe ever) it's unfit for Wikipedia. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term has faced recent heavy attention and scrutiny as of late. This article is similar to the OK Boomer article in terms of content and subject matter. I wouldn't say it's automatically non-notable because of WP:TONE; all it takes is a little rewriting and revising. Love of Corey (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just read this article from Nina Burleigh about the meme and it's role in politics and society. https://gen.medium.com/how-the-karen-meme-benefits-the-right-4cff760d6e90 Sgerbic (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it is in general having notability. I am open to further improvement of this article.Universehk (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd like to direct your attention to the sources currently used in the article: Vox, Slate, Time, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Guardian and The New York Times, all from articles speaking directly about the term — its use, its meaning, and the sociopolitical themes it evokes. You have nominated an obviously notable article, and I would like to speak to your manager. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The term has received a lot of recent attention and appears to be notable. An article explaining the origins of the terms and its meaning is encyclopedic and would be appropriate given the widespread usage of the term. If article requires improvement then we should seek to improve the article rather than delete. Tracland (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is easily notable, and I don't see any reason to apply WP:TNT. Java Hurricane 08:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable term, plenty of solid sources. (Even though it hasn't got into the Oxford English Dictionary yet). PamD 11:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remember Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. Term is certainly WP-notable, with several full WP:SIGCOV pieces on the term from WP:RS/P sources including: CNN, Business Insider, The Guardian, New York Times. I would snow close this, no need to prolong. Britishfinance (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very helpful. Not embarrassed to admit I didn't know what "Karen" meant when reading about the "Central Park Karen." It is well sourced. In my humble opinion, all well sourced knowledge/information is appropriate for Wikipedia, as testified to by all the articles on pop culture and other notable and significant (but, at their core, frivolous and superficial) topics contained herein, e.g. Pokemon Go (Level 40 trainer here), curling, Harvard Lampoon, etc. Also, if this article is to be deleted, what then is the point of the category Slang and parenthetical disambiguation "(slang)"? Finally, I am offended that Chad isn't being similarly considered (with a nod to Toughpigs' entry, v.s.). Paulshikleejr (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic. If it needs work that's a discussion not for afd Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I used the description to find out what the term means and its various contexts. The article served that purpose well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.139.94.151 (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. I think it's a really stupid term myself, but it has arguably become notable by our standards beyond being a passing meme. Even the nominator admits 'not to discount its notability' - so why nominate it for deletion? Robofish (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article on the word is actually on the front page of CNN right now. The article aside, the word meets notability requirements on the grounds that it has received coverage from reliable sources for several years. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:16, 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. czar 05:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArtLib.cz[edit]

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

Reviewed as part of New Page Patrol. This organization aiming to improve art coverage on Wikipedia appears to fail WP:NORG, with zero independent sources; the sources in the article are from Czech Wikipedia, Commons, and the Wikimedia Foundation blog. The organization has notable members and has worked with notable institutions, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I was unable to find sources to satisfy WP:GNG by searching for "ArtLib.cz" or "WikiProjekt Knihovna umění". There is this article - from what I can tell using Google Translate, the website appears to be fairly reliable (has staff writers and is funded by the Czech government) - however, the article reads like a press release. This appears to be a reprint of the same press release. Perhaps Czech speakers will be able to find more sources, but at the moment I'm not convinced the organization is notable. Spicy (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this appears to be promotion of an activity (Wikipedia editing!). A search does not turn up WP:SIGCOV, so it is a GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this is notable enough. Java Hurricane 08:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I thought it was simply a misplaced English version of a wikiproject page. I made a note on the talk page. The project doesn't seem to exist on enwp, so perhaps it can be established? Perhaps notify the participants that are active on enwp? Vexations (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of significant coverage. possibly put in the Wikipedia: namespace? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the organization. Article looks WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:39, 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venues of the 2022 Asian Games[edit]

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

No announcement from organisers, no references, and original research Aleen f1 01:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is basically a list with zero sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find references to a majority of the info included in this list. This link does mention about "53 competition venues, five Asian Games villages and 31 training venues" but only that. — Emperork (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources provided; moreover, this article was created too soon. Java Hurricane 08:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is really any venue then describe about it on main article of the venue. Kaweendra (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research with no resources provided. Probably created way too soon and if so should have been on the main article. HawkAussie (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too far in the future for this kind of article. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:44, 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 already deleted. (non-admin closure) Crazy Boy 826 01:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black 45 King[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. ~SS49~ {talk} 01:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 01:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 01:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've deleted the article again as it's blatant self-promotion and includes copyvios. Salted for good measure as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 01:36, 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 already deleted. (non-admin closure) Crazy Boy 826 01:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Hendrik Mullaard[edit]

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

just as before, doesn't appear to be a notable painter, even with the "new" sources which are basically genealogy sites, there is no coverage. And apparently a 90% copyvio from here Praxidicae (talk) 00:24, 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] Havardi, Jeremy (2010). The Greatest Briton: Essays on Winston Churchill's Life and Political Philosophy. Shepheard-Walwyn. p. 313. ISBN 978-0-85683-335-9.

[2] Manchester, William; Reid, Paul (2012). The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Defender of the Realm, 1940-1965. Little, Brown. pp. 506–507. ISBN 978-0-316-22214-3.

[3] Horton, Helena (8 October 2018). "UN ambassador for space apologises for quoting 'racist' Winston Churchill". The Telegraph. Retrieved 30 May 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]