Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 8: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
removed triplicate nomination - just one instance of it now
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaza nationalism}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaza nationalism}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaza nationalism}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaza nationalism}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade}}

Revision as of 20:21, 8 May 2020

< 7 May 9 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza nationalism

Zaza nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG in that it is a controversial movement looking for recognition. See this journal article, and this one which is cited in the article. Atsme Talk 📧 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Added underlined source. 20:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Atsme Talk 📧 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Atsme Talk 📧 20:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, whilst the article clearly needs a clean-up, this appears to be a legit article topic. See for example "Soon Zaza nationalism began to flourish in Turkey and Iran, with some Zazas calling for the creation of a separate Zaza state called either Zazaistan or Dersim. In 1991, Zaza nationalism was further boosted when the Turkish government..."[1], "This Zaza 'nationalism' still largely a matter of exile politics..."[2], "The birth of modern Zaza nationalism in the diaspora began as a marginal phenomenon, but gradually it began to influence the debate among the Zazas inside Turkey and Iran. A minority supported calls for a separate Zazaistan, distinct from..."[3], "Most tribes there do not speak Kurdish proper but a related language called Zaza or KirmanAki; the author is a spokesman for a nascent Zaza nationalism)"[4], " To Zaza nationalists, finally, it threatens to mistakenly treat Zaza speakers as Kurds, rather than as a distinct people or nation."[5], "started claiming that the revolt had been of a Zaza nationalist character, while others called it a 'Zaza-Alevi rebellion'"[6], "Zaza Kurds (their homeland in eastern Turkey is now called "Zazastan"), however, felt their "otherness" and accused the Kurdish majority of ... Zaza nationalism is supported mainly by Alevi Zazas, while Sunni Zazas keep their reservations."[7], "Zaza nationalists , who in the 1980s claimed that the Zaza speakers were a distinct..."[8] --Soman (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm puzzled by the mention of Iran in those references since there are no Zazas there. Nonetheless, the well-sourced information should be merged to Zazas. --Semsûrî (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to support but the article needs a thorough cleaning. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a Turkish version and it should be in an English version. should not be deleted and more information is added over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.129.17 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Victoria R. Williams (24 February 2020). Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History, and Threats to Survival [4 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 1194. ISBN 978-1-4408-6118-5.
  2. ^ Kehl-Bodrogi; Otter-Beaujean; Barbara Kellner-Heikele (13 November 2018). Syncretistic Religious Communities in the Near East: Collected Papers of the International Symposium “Alevism in Turkey and Comparable Syncretistic Religious Communities in the Near East in the Past and Present”, Berlin, 14-17 April 1995. BRILL. p. 16. ISBN 978-90-04-37898-8.
  3. ^ James Minahan; Peter T. Wendel (2002). Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: S-Z. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 2100. ISBN 978-0-313-32384-3.
  4. ^ Martin Van Bruinessen (2000). Kurdish Ethno-Nationalism Versus Nation-Building States: Collected Articles. “The” Isis Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-975-428-177-4.
  5. ^ Paul Joseph White; Joost Jongerden (2003). Turkey's Alevi Enigma: A Comprehensive Overview. BRILL. p. 197. ISBN 90-04-12538-8.
  6. ^ Die Welt des Islams. D. Reimer. 2008. p. 122.
  7. ^ Asian and African Studies. Vydavatel̕stvo Slovenskej akadémie vied. 2007. p. 18.
  8. ^ Martin van Bruinessen (2000). Mullas, Sufis and Heretics: The Role of Religion in Kurdish Society : Collected Articles. Isis Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-975-428-162-0.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted. Benahol (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soman, sorry but the sources you provided actually confirm why the article should be deleted. Nationalism is defined by dictionaries and having Zaza precede it, doesn't make the combination notable for a stand alone encyclopedic article. The sources you cited fail to establish notability; rather it is simple terminology in passing mention. Atsme Talk 📧 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not how to read there references. The references indicate that there is such a movement and it has sufficient degree of notability to warrant a separate article, in part demonstrated through the fact that many scholars study it. The fact that the notion that Zazas constitute a separate national or ethnic group is contested by Kurdish nationalists doesn't disqualify the notability of the subject. We also have "Aynı şekilde günümüzde Zazalar (Dimli) Kürt kökenli olduklarına dair iddialara karşı çıkıyorlar. Özellikle 20. yüzyılın son on yılında ayrı bir Zaza milliyetçiliği daha göze çarpar hale geldi ve olası bir Zazaistan ulus-devletinin haritaları Kürdistan..."[1], "and it coined the new name of Zazaistan for the ancient homeland of this nation.52 This journal appears to have had only a very small circle of readers initially, but precisely because it met with very angry Kurdish reactions, its thesis that the Zazas are a doubly oppressed people gained credibility, and gradually growing numbers of Zazas were won over to its views."[2], "semble pas concerner uniquement les Kurdes , car certaines organisations alevies , revendiquant la création d ' un État d ' Alevistan en Anatolie ainsi que des groupes prônant le nationalisme zaza et la création d ' un Zazaistan , en relèvent"[3], "Das neu erdachte Heimatland Zazaistan wird ebenfalls kaum eine starke Anziehungskraft ausüben, abgesehen von einigen romantischen Intellektuellen im Exil, aber das kulturelle Wiederaufleben der Zaza und ein gewisser Ärger über die..."[4], "Bei ihnen verschmolz eine seit jeher stark ausgeprägte regionale Sonderidentität nun zu einer über die Sprache definierten ethnischen Identität mit der Forderung nach Autonomie für ihr Verbreitungsgebiet „Zazastan" bzw. „Alevistan"".[5] --Soman (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hakan Özoğlu (2005). Osmanlı devleti ve Kürt milliyetçiliği. Kitap Yayinevi Ltd. p. 155. ISBN 978-975-6051-02-3.
  2. ^ Fāliḥ ʻAbd al-Jabbār; Hosham Dawod (2006). The Kurds: Nationalism and Politics. Saqi. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-86356-825-1.
  3. ^ Alain Jund (1995). Enjeux de l'immigration turque en Europe: les Turcs en France et en Europe : actes du colloque international de Strasbourg, 25-26 février 1991. CIEMI. p. 138. ISBN 978-2-7384-3527-9.
  4. ^ Carsten Borck; Eva Savelsberg; Siamend Hajo (1997). Ethnizität, Nationalismus, Religion und Politik in Kurdistan. Lit. p. 211. ISBN 978-3-8258-3420-3.
  5. ^ Erhard Franz; Deutsches Orient-Institut (2003). Entwicklungen und Widersprüche: zum 80-jährigen Bestehen der Republik Türkei : ausgewählte Betiräge 1999-2003. Deutsches Orient-Institut. p. 108. ISBN 978-3-89173-083-6.
See WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE. I would not object to merging the relevant parts that are worth keeping into Zazas. Atsme Talk 📧 13:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense does WP:SYNTH apply here? And out of the 13 references presented here, which are WP:FRINGE sources? --Soman (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously appropriate expansion of the relevant portion of the Zazas article. It had nothing whatsoever to do with SYNTH, as it is clearly based on sources. FRINGE is altogether irrelevant to political movements of this sort, unless it is intended as a claim that only a few people are doing it and therefore it isn't important. first,t he sources seem to show otherwise, and second, if it gets sufficientc overage, then even a small political movement is important. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Once one discards the obvious one-edit SPAs, the comments that do not reference any policy at all, and the large number of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comments, mostly about Christine Blasey Ford, there is a consensus that this should not exist as a stand alone article, but there is not consensus to delete it. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Reade


Tara Reade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to run foul of WP:ONEEVENT. Ms. Reade's allegations are already detailed at length in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. There is no need to restate them here. This article should be deleted or merged into that article. This page was a redirect until today, that should be restored. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and perhaps WP:SALT as well. She has no notability beyond the allegation. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – No Notability beyond this one event. I checked the references section in the article, and this is what I found:
    • Ref 9 and Ref 15 – web archive of her own domain from April 2019; image-heavy CV-style page: "Non-Profit Consultant-Available for Projects"
    • Ref 16 – a 3-sentence bio at Women's Int'l Perspective from 2009, which mentions surviving domestic violence
    • Refs 1-8, 10-15, and 17-26 are about the sexual assault allegation.
Except for brief CV-like info, it is very difficult to find anything that is not about this event. Should be merged. Mathglot (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been noted on the Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete No notability outside Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. This page has been heavily discussed and there is not consensus to have a second article about Reade, duplicative of the allegation. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying a senator grabbed your junk 26 years ago is not as significant as killing a world leader, just a slow news month, cabin fever is rampant. Nothing she did in 2019 was notable, article arrived last month. Only noteworthy background to that one event, the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she is person notable for only one "event". However, this is not really an event, but just an accusation made by the person Therefore, I believe it is more appropriate to have this page about the person, rather that a page about notable, but questionable accusation by the person. My very best wishes (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above. I believe any content related to Reade in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with consideration of the body of reliable sources that focus on the allegation as per WP:BALASP. "Unique content" about Reade may be factual and verifiable but not suitable for inclusion. We can't just decide that we need to include paragraphs of her biography somewhere or other because we think it makes for good reading if Reade herself is not considered notable and if few, if any, sources about the allegation present that information. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Yet also, of course, per wp:SINGLEEVENT, it's possible for individuals to be considered notable for our purposes despite their primarily being so due to one event.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, as a practical matter, the choices before us include:
- A. - delete (eg/ Zapruder film [but no  Abraham Zapruder  blp]; [no  Rodney King  blp)
- B1. - merge Joe Biden sexual assault allegation into Tara Reade (Cf.: Juanita Broaddrick; Karen_McDougal#Alleged_affair_with_Donald_Trump)
- B2. - vice versa
- C. - keep (Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination#Allegations_about_sexual_comments & Anita Hill; Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Sexual_assault_allegations & Christine_Blasey_Ford#Sexual_assault_allegation_against_Brett_Kavanaugh)
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Mathglot, the only content unrelated to the allegation is essentially a brief CV. I do not believe that Reade's CV should be included in the allegation article, so I favor "delete" over "merge". userdude 20:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You understand that means we remove the 2019 stuff, the story of her attempts to be heard, her off-topic discussions with people who did not mention assault when interviewed by journalists, and a lot of the "commentary" not related to assault. I think all that is significant encyclopedic content for a Tara Reade article. It's not on topic for the sexaul assault allegation. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "2019 stuff" you mean her previous allegation of inappropriate touching, then it belongs in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article as background for the "2020 stuff" -- because it is discussed in relation to the sexual assault allegation by a lot of sources, it should go there. We should look to reliable sources for guidance on what to include. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's greatly complicating the matter, however. Half of what's currently in the allegations article is really off-topic. In the Tara Reade article, all the circumstances and history would naturally come within the topic. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing a general trend towards keep in recent comments, so I feel the need to expand on my delete rationale. As other users have pointed out, this appears to be an example of WP:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY. Applying the general test: the article appears to fail criterion 1; passes criterion 2; may pass criterion 3. The reason the article may pass criterion 3 is Reade's 2019 accusations; however, the 2019 accusations fall under the purview of Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. I am not dead-set on my delete !vote, but I have not seen evidence that the article passes criterion 1 of WP:PSEUDO: Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?. The only example of coverage of Reade that is unrelated to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is Mathglot's Ref 16. userdude 18:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: this should be deleted without merging, because any merge attempt would inevitably overturn consensus on Joe Biden sexual assault allegation in multiple ways. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Consistent with WP:ONEEVENT and let's face it, allowing this article to remain is step one; step two will be merging the sexual assault article into this article which will divorce the name "Joe Biden" from the story. EdJF (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ONEEVENT. Her role is very significant within the one significant event. Banana Republic (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm amazed by the double standard between this article and for example the article about Christine Blasey Ford, which was created at the time of Kavanaugh' sexual assault allegations. There's enough coverage within reliable sources to write a factual separate article. --Deansfa (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christine Blasey Ford does not derive her notability from the accusation she made. To do so would belittle her professional accomplishments, being a notable person primarily for her work as a professor at a prestigious university. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Christine Blasey Ford absolutely derives all of her notability from the accusation she made, and the proof is that she didn't have her own article until she came out publicly with her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. To keep her article but not Tara Reade's is a double standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.237.42.174 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would have been credible if the article was created before Kavanaugh's controversy. It wasn't. Christine Blasey Ford became a national figure because of Kavanaugh's controversy. --Deansfa (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you trying to imply that Ford is somehow objectively more important than Reade because of her social class? I think I am reading your comment wrong, but the argument I am hearing is as follows: even though Ford only became a public figure because of her Kavanaugh accusation (evidenced by her lack of page prior to then), because she is associated with a prestigious university she merits a page, unlike Reade who is a nobody and should not have one outside the allegations page. There are two things I see wrong here: first off, is the flagrant classism such an answer displays. It emphasizes that even though neither woman had a page prior to their accusations, the elite woman deserves to be acknowledged as a human outside of the case itself, while the non-elite woman does not. This leads to my second dispute with your post: the implicit idea that someone getting a page is a merit of some kind. It's not. You don't earn a wikipedia page. It's not "belittling" to not have a wikipedia page. The vast majority of people who do important work will never have a wikipedia page; it does not mean they are not important, it simply means that they are notable by wikipedia's technical definition. I'm a little disturbed by the implication that you think Ford doesn't deserve to be "belittled" yet Reade *does* deserve to be "belittled" because she is not important enough by your standards--which again, have nothing to do with notability, only social class.67.168.189.62 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though Reade may not have reached the level of national notability that Blasey-Ford has yet, it doesn't seem likely that media coverage of this allegation is going to slow down any time in the near future, and as such, details of Reade's personal life as well. I just don't see the point of deleting this article or redirecting it when it's very clear that there is becoming more and more to add to it with each passing day. Instead, what I suggest is that the article on the Biden assault allegation should be changed to an article about the various accusations of sexual misconduct he has received over the course of his political career, with the longest section being about Reade. 2600:1702:10A0:6DA0:D958:BA51:AC1A:8BAB (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC) — 2600:1702:10A0:6DA0:D958:BA51:AC1A:8BAB (talk) has made few edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: I've previously !voted, but wanted to add that this article fits the definition of a pseudo-biography to a T. The brief #Biography section has 22 references (footnotes 8–29); have a look at them. Even for biographical detail apparently unrelated to the "one event", such as, say, "resides in Nevada County" (note 8), her mother's date of death ("2016" – note 16), or "testified as an expert witness" (notes 22 and 23) are all from sources about the Biden assault allegations. The only exceptions are SPSes, or CV-like mini-bios (e.g., "earned a law degree" – note 29, possibly also a SPS). Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Keep This is a story in current news and has been for a couple of months, particularly since April 8. To eliminate Reade's identification from wikipedia would do a great disservice to our readership, remember, the reason we are doing this. We should provide answers to questions like; "Who is this person?" Perhaps some Biden supporters would love to find excuses for this story to go away, at least until he can get elected. Step one, make the accuser / victim go away. Serving their politically based interests is not neutral. Blanking any content for political purposes is improper. Trackinfo (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader is already informed about who Reade is in the article on the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. However, she is otherwise not a notable individual, and telling people about various unrelated elements of her private life, like where she lives now, is silly when Reade has complained about harassment and doxing. As Mathglot wrote above, we are looking at a "pseudo-biography" as per WP:PSEUDO. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trackinfo: I assume you and everyone here votes based on their understanding of policy and guidelines. Did you really intend to spend the last four sentences of your Afd comment (starting, "Perhaps some Biden supporters...") ascribing partisan political motives to those who interpret the guidelines differently than you do? As someone who has 13 years and 100k edits, you're undoubtedly familiar with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And probably even WP:RUC. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Trackinfo: I have to agree an enormous amount of bad faith in your statement above. I assume following your logic that you're in favour of creating an article for every single Trump accuser? Assuming everyone here has a political motivation is contrary to WP:AGF. Glen 08:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every Trump story should be told as best we can. That is our job. Personally, I don't like that these kinds of stories keep showing up about our politicians, but they do. We shouldn't report innuendo fabricated by bloggers. When it gets into major media, then we should report it. That is our policy. What I see is every time a legitimate story is durogetory to one faction or another faction, it is swarmed by partisans trying to hide it. Not just this article, most. Each time we give credence to these arguments, each time an article is deleted, we are allowing wikipedia to get censored. You encourage these political factions to hire operatives to do it more. Yes, 100K edits and 13 years, I have been fighting a long battle against censorship. Trackinfo (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my nomination above, I think this article may also run foul of WP:REDUNDANTFORK and that merging Joe Biden sexual assault allegation into this article would ignore discussions there and consensus against moving the article to include Tara Reade's name.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on Elizabeth Short, there is one on the Black Dahlia. And as that article notes, it is about BOTH "Elizabeth Short and her murder". Here we already have an article about Tara Reade's allegations, so it isn't really the same thing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Gruffbenji:, @AllThatJazz2012: and Trackinfo. I would remind you all to WP:AGF. I would also invite you to reconsider your comments and have a look through the talk page and archives at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation to have some context about what is happening here. There have been numerous discussions there about starting a "Tara Reade" article, moving that article to a title which included her name (which was ultimately defeated) and the scope of that article. You are under no obligation to get involved there or to read the numerous and longwinded discussions there, but you might want to be careful throwing around allegations of "bad faith" and "shame" if you aren't prepared to do so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Of course, re-naming the allegation article would only happen with a decision to merge it into this article. A merger the other way would not do so and neither would, per wp:ONEEVENT, keeping this biography as a companion article to it.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but as you well know there were also discussions about inclusion of information in a biographical section there which some editors cautioned could dox her or perpetuate a WP:POV, by including irrelevant details to suggest she was not being honest. That is one of the problems of a pseudo-biography whether a stand alone article or a section within another article. If this just becomes a place to talk about her different pen names (and suggest there is something sinister about that), engage in speculation about the meanings of her blog posts, air unverified cheque fraud claims, etc... well then this is really just a WP:POVFORK which might avoid some of the scrutiny that is taking place at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. This is one of the reasons we are not supposed to make biographies for people who are only notable for one event particularly when there is already an article about that event. And probably why you were discouraged from doing this before you created the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No point except for the fact that Wikipedia policy supports it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - There has been canvassing on Reddit here, as was previously noted by Zloyvolsheb in an edit summary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also here: [1]. Ironically I'm a Chapo Trap House fan, and argued over a month ago to keep Reade's allegation from being disappeared from the relevant page, but a bunch of Chapo participants have come here to take up arms because we're all Biden supporters who make policy-based arguments in bad faith. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Reading those threads I guess it explains all the random users and IPs that have come out of the woodwork with Keep votes and no actual reasoning beyond because. Glen 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-cogent arguments ought be discounted, including as well any !votes-for-deletion above inexplicably citing wp:ONEEVENT as a blanket proscription(!)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In those cases we had no article dedicated to the event (each particular woman's allegation); instead biographical articles were created long after the accusations emerged. In Reade's case, this (pseudo-)biographical article was created after the article on the allegation, Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, was created based on the current news coverage and to avoid overwhelming the Joe Biden article. So, different situation. The Tara Reade article is essentially redundant, unlike the others. In addition to redundancy, that raises the issue of WP:POVFORK. If we had no article on the allegation, I would support a biographical article about Reade, but as we already have that article the appropriate step was to get consensus for a title change. That was suggested at several points but no consensus formed (see Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 5), so this additional article was created out of a redirect, bypassing the process that should have been used. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each biographical article is judged on its own merits in its own context. For example, Anita Hill is also notable for having been inducted into the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame; she has received multiple awards and an enduring prominence. So far Tara Reade's article is a pseudo-biography that repeats the information in the original article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and adds some non-notable details that consensus has omitted from that article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:Zloyvolsheb, consensus within each situation is determined independently of that within another. Citing wp:CONSISTENT, we see that inasmuch as other alleged victims-not-averse-to-their-becoming-public-figures (who've likewise received not just news but feature-article coverages by the Times, Post, New Yorker, Atlantic, and the like) have biographical articles, I agree with your "support of a biographical article about Reade," as well. Yet, citing wp:OTHERSTUFF, our support is able to be independent of whether editors at "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" come finally to the consensus for basic biographical info about Reade's inclusion there.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy-based argument. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rreagan007 I will strike my edit then, and come up with a better argument later cookie monster (2020) 755 18:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation – my earlier argument was faulty. I do slightly agree with Worldlywise but after examining the Tara Reade article virtually most of it is about the allegation and not about who she is independent of the allegation. This leads me to believe this is WP:BLP1E which would better be served in the Joe Biden sexual allegation article. Though we have an article on Christine Blasey Ford, she is independent on her own for her academic work. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation per WP:BLP1E. Only notable for that one event, no reason to have this seperate article that is essentially just a content fork. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Reade is not notable per WP:SINGLEEVENT, though the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation is notable. KidAd (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. In my opinion, the intense coverage of Reade and her story merits an exception to 1E, per the multiple precedents mentioned above. The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article is long (and presumably will only grow) even without Reade's biographical details, and readers are better served if this article is kept and improved, not deleted. Davey2116 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article allows us a proper space to explain items of Reade's biography that are critical to understanding who she is/might be, but which would have questionable relevance in an article solely dedicated to the sexual misconduct allegations she has made. This helpfully supplements the article about the sexual misconduct. People's understanding of these claims are better informed when they have information about who is making these claims. Therefore, it is of use to understanding the incident to provide a biography of the individual making the claims. Additionally, WP:ONEEVENT does not strictly rule against making articles about people associated with one notable event, it merely urges consideration and caution with doing so. SecretName101 (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the information truly is "critical to understanding who she is/might be", then it should be in the sexual assault article anyway, which would make this article redundant to that article and filled with non-critical info on a non-notable individual. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is my concern exactly. To understand the allegations one does not need to know that years afterwards she had a child, nor do you need to know about non-relevant/notable blog posts or essays she wrote. The long sections about the allegations here are already covered in the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation article. When you remove that whats left in this article is trivia about blog posts and details about her family, where she was born etc. If something is truely relevant to the allegations she has made, it should be in the allegations article. If it's not in that article, it is because rightly or wrongly consensus is currently against including it there. The solution to that is to raise it there, not to create a content fork.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the blp's summary of the subject's allegations are incorrect, the fix is to edit this part of the article. If items of her personal history are inappropriate, ditto. Blanket removal of biographical treatment from Wikipedia seems a roundabout way to address these issues. And if these type of things are content forks (dual treatments of an "identical" subject), WP will need to fix there being what's otherwise considered SUMMARY STYLE tree pairs, such as Zapruder film & Zapruder, Thomas hearings & Hill, Kavanaugh hearings & Ford, and the like throughout the project wherein companion articles either summarize or expand upon content within its partner upon a subject tree. Speaking of trees, a possible decision tree might go like this. Does wp:SINGLEEVENT preclude blp coverage of any individual notable primarily for one event, yes or no? If it does, then no matter what, there can be no blp. If it does not, then this question is no longer relevant. Does wp:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY apply here? Same thing. If so, no go. If not, go to next question. Does the fact that there is a companion article on Wikipedia covering the event preclude there being a blp, yes or no? Same thing. Next question: Is she notable? Final question: Should there be two articles? (Zapruder/ Zapruder film.) Or, one? (Breonna Taylor's biogaphy being contained within the Death of Breonna Taylor and Neda Agha-Soltan's biography within Death of Neda Agha-Soltan; or else, the killing of Ahmaud Arbery's being contained within his biography and the beating of Rodney King within his, etc.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am not going to argue WP:OTHERSTUFF. Yes, I think she is only notable for one event which is covered elsewhere. Yes, I think this is a pseudo-biography. No, I am not going to try to argue about the irrelevant content at Talk:Tara Reade, because I don't wish to spend my time editing an article which should ultimately be deleted and restored to a redirect. If this article is deleted that would not have been a good use of my time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except, as I very clearly said Darryl Kerrigan, not all things important to understanding who the accuser is are directly relevant to the allegations themselves, which makes them inappropriate for the main article on the allegations, and thus the main article will inevitably provide an incomplete picture on who the person making the allegations is. SecretName101 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is only notable for the one event. What information would be key to understanding a complete picture of the accuser and her allegations, but not be relevant to the allegations article itself? Do you think we need to know that she had a child after, that she has written some blogs? What information are we talking about here? Because I tend to think any information which is not relevant to the allegations (the only reason she is "notable") is a violation of her privacy per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and an attempt to bulk up a pseudo-biography.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:11, 17 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. Tone 19:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Rae

Roger Rae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. I found one obituary. This article has been mostly unsourced since 2009. Vmavanti (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 8 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. Tone 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Buchanan

Linda Buchanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a suburban mayor, not properly referenced as the subject of enough significant or substantial coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. This is written like a campaign brochure, saying far more about the themes she campaigned on than it says about anything she did or didn't do about those issues once she was actually the mayor -- but mayoral notability hinges much more strongly on the ability to write about the latter than the former. And as for sourcing, other than one citation to the city's own self-published website about itself (a primary source which is not support for notability at all), this is otherwise referenced entirely to a community weekly hyperlocal, with no evidence whatsoever of any coverage in major media. As always, mayors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- a mayor's notability depends on being able to write much more substance, and cite much better sourcing, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 12 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 Rat#Fiction. Tone 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wererat

Wererat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fantasy creature that fails WP:GNG. Mostly just a WP:OR example farm. Many of the examples given are not actually wererats, but anthropomorphic rats, such as the Skaven, as wererats would have to be therianthropes. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ratmen, ratfolk, and wererats are very common in fantasy media but I'm not finding any reliable sources covering them. Dream Focus 13:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the very least, the article would need to be renamed and refocused, as the intro specifically talks about therianthropic creatures called wererats, where as many of the examples that then follows are just a collection of a bunch of random rat-related creatures that do not fit that definition at all, many of which are never actually referred to as "wererats". The current article is also mostly unsourced, and has quite a bit of WP:OR that should not be kept, regardless of the fate of the article. Perhaps this could be simply used as a Redirect to Rat#Fiction, with an added mention in that section of rat-like men being a common element in fiction, until some kind of general ratperson article can actually be developed with reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT to Rat#Fiction. I agree with Rorshacma's reasoning. Just redirect it for now and if anyone wants to use the information in the history of the article over there they can. Dream Focus 17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 19:08, 8 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. Tone 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Mussatto

AfDs for this article:
Darrell Mussatto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suburban mayor without strong enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. Although a prior discussion in 2014 closed as no consensus, Wikipedia's notability standards for mayors have evolved even further since then. The old idea that mayors are "inherently" notable, regardless of their sourceability, the moment the city's population was within striking distance of 50,000 (which was already on its way out in 2014, but still sometimes showed up at AFD anyway) has been fully deprecated -- and we're also now a lot clearer about testing the mayor's sources for their depth and type and geographic range, and not just counting their number.

There are nine footnotes here, but one of them is just a repetition of one of the others, so there are really only eight sources -- but of those, two are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, three are from a suburban community weekly hyperlocal, the reduplicated one is from an alt-weekly, and just two are from the market's main daily newspaper -- so only the two Vancouver Sun hits are even really relevant to whether he passes GNG or not, but one of them is just a piece of campaign coverage which mentions him without being about him to any non-trivial degree, and the other is just technical verification that he won the election. This is not enough coverage to make a suburban mayor notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 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. Tone 19:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate Hills, Maryland

Confederate Hills, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per sources [3][4][5] this is a subdivision/housing development; they are not significant coverage to pass WP:GEOLAND2. Unclear what deprodder refers to as significant coverage because these certainly aren't. Reywas92Talk 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:52, 8 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 SGH Warsaw School of Economics. Sandstein 14:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Public Policy Studies

Journal of Public Policy Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous prodded by User:Randykitty. While I agree the journal is not notable and shouldn't have an article, I think it would be a lot better to merge to SGH Warsaw School of Economics than delete. Let's see if others disagree, if this should be deleted, merged, or kept. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:49, 8 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 Deleted as G3 by Athaenara (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izana

Izana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Teahouse#10 year old hoax?. I suspect this 10 year old article might be a hoax. Google searches don't turn up much and that seems unusual even after considering the obscurity of the topic. TryKid (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TryKid (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. TryKid (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Some opinion to drafting, but keep seems stronger. Fenix down (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Barry

Louie Barry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FOOTY, and was nominated WP:TOOSOON. No senior caps in professional football. If he doesn't get capped, the page won't have long-term significance. Ortizesp (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham is the second largest city in the UK - but sure, it's just local coverage... *shakes head* GiantSnowman 18:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage has nothing to do with city size. The article was written by someone who covers Aston Villa with regularity. If there's other non-routine, non-transfer coverage of him I'd probably change to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source is clearly about the player as a whole, not only the transfer, IMHO. --Coco (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly just covers the transaction IMO. Not every player who plays as a Barca youth is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are several paragraphs referring only to either his early life, his youth international career, his time at West Brom... --Coco (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buidhe 21:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy Rednecks

AfDs for this article:
Groovy Rednecks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as the LA Weekly which with a circulation of 160,000 is a regional source rather than a local source and in any case local reliable sources press such as Culver City are acceptable for WP:GNG except for companies and organisations, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first LA Weekly article doesn't even talk about the band at all, its mention is in the weekly show listings at the very end of the article, and the second one is not particularly in-depth coverage as it is a quick highlight along with at least three other performers. Culver City article is an interview. I just do not see how that gets us to a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added additional regional references including a listing as a Top-10 LA Country/Americana band in 2017.Toxdoc411 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even the new sources are not in depth. The current sourcing is as follows: 1) Two sentences about one of the band's members; 2) Passing mention when listing the bands that played at a five year anniversary of a music club; 3) part of a listicle; 4) Not particularly in-depth coverage as it is a highlight along with at least three other performers who are performing at the same country music club; 5) An interview in a local newspaper; and 6) a link to their AllMusic page which is not a reliable source. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources but in this case with no biography or album reviews it doesn't count to notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Bayoğlu

Cem Bayoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was going to go through and remove all the unsourced fluff but that would leave the article with a single sentence and no claim to notability since it's all sourced to unreliable PR spam and black hat SEO sites. So tl;dr paid for pr spam. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete have a look at source #2, Gazette Vatan, which is indicative of the rest. One need not speak the language to understand the breadcrumb above the article headline: "Haberler » Advertorial Haberleri » CEM BAYOĞLU KİMDİR?", i.e. paid advertorial. examining the other sources, I suspect a large percentage of them are of the fake/paid variety.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not finding that this photographer is notable. The sourcing is thin and does not constitute significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Praxidicae, John Pack Lambert and Netherzone... I created this page because I thought that artist had important works and was previously approved in another language on Wikipedia. I regret to read the comments about the article in question being advertisements. ThatMontrealIP Did you really check this artist, his works and what independent editors wrote about him? Sometime newspapers publish artist bios to increase their web site hits so, it doesn't mean that references are paid ad or whatever else. The person in question is an artist who photographs famous artists and his works are exhibited in many countries. Don't you think that people who produce permanent art works do deserve to be here instead of popular culture's celebrities who have took a role in a few TV series or movies and then suddenly disappeared? I hope you review this issue and your decision again because I really made an effort to write this article well. Respect & regards. Cerrenfly (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cerrenfly: republished artist bios and press releases do not count towards establishing notability, which is the measure we use to see if an article should be on Wikipedia. I did look very carefully at the sources. Not notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: I don't agree with you but ok.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Nimri Aziz

Barbara Nimri Aziz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer and anthropologist, not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for writers or anthropologists. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test requires some evidence of her significance, such as winning noteworthy awards and/or having enough reliable source coverage about her to clear WP:GNG. But the only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, and the only references being cited at all are her primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's been directly affiliated with, which are not notability-supporting sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment an academic with several citations in Wikipedia, with probably the biggest contribution in uncovering the story of Yogmaya Neupane to the public and formation of RAWI, both of which have their own articles in Wikipedia. Expansion is definitely needed but deletion citing non-notable is unwarranted. User:NirSharma13 (talk) 4:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
    In this context, notability is a technical term referring to a Wikipedia policy, WP:GNG. It's not intended as a slight or a value judgment. Are you aware of any sources which would demonstrate that the subject satisfies WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC? pburka (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: As far as I can see, I really do feel that with enough resesarch and expansion, the entry will indeed easily fulfill the standards mentioned in WP:GNG. I have researched some topics in Google Scholar and have already read two of her book, plus other books that openly cite here, which leads to me confidently believe that this is indeed an article that belongs to be in Wikipedia, even if just the WP:ACADEMIC is considered. User:NirSharma13 (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you feel that way (I also feel the subject is notable), but it would be more persuasive if you provided links to reliable, independent sources that demonstrate notability. Note that the subject doesn't have to satisfy all the subject-specific guidelines: any one is sufficient. But evidence is necessary. pburka (talk) 18:47, 17 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) 04:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 23:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Burdzy

Anna Burdzy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have sincere doubts that Miss Universe Great Britain is notable considering there are 0 reliable sources about her supposed 2017 win - in fact, all sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable sources (like black hat SEO) and as this is the only claim to notability, i can't see how she meets any inclusion criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California 4th Grade Mission Project

AfDs for this article:
California 4th Grade Mission Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic of the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Iafisher (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Iafisher (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Iafisher (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not against a state-wide school project meeting GNG. But it seems like, with the present sourcing, this topic does not. I removed two truly irrelevant sources from the page: they did not even mention the project. The one remaining source https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-public-schools-mission-project-model-11953722.php is a local news site, which does not suffice. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. I am not surprised that this may be deleted. But it does occur to me that it is a large bit of curriculum that millions of people have been exposed to, and the development of it, the controversies about it, and the way in which it was terminated would all be of interest to anyone interested in the development of school curriculum. Are there pages about curriculum development? Or about "Controversial topics in education"? For example, I am thinking of

  • teaching about the genocide (or the "not a genocide") of Armenians in Turkey in the early 20th century
  • teaching in the US about the Hindu religion (eg is it a non-theistic religion?)
  • teaching of "pet projects", such as the requirement that one day of instruction in California schools include instruction on Portugese-Americans. This was sponsored by a Portugese-American legislator. And I am sure other states and countries have examples like this.
  • curriculum not included in school, such as (in the US) how to vote.

Are there articles about the how the political or social guides or perhaps distorts curriculum development? RayKiddy (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Çelebicihan). MER-C 08:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meet For Charity (auction)

Meet For Charity (auction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently created article about a Russian charity which fundraisers by arranging paid meetings. The organisation was founded by a PR professional and all the sources are, well, PR. One source is a dead link and the rest are interviews and puff pieces. Notability is not shown and unless a Russian speaker can identify some RIS, I think this should be deleted. Mccapra (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:56, 8 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. Tone 20:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saahil Karmally

Saahil Karmally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable record producer & musician who falls short of WP:MUSICBIO & doesn’t satisfy GNG. A before search only shows announcement of his new music Celestina007 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Paradoxsociety 18:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plandemic

Plandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a trailer for an (as yet) unproduced film. One whose notoriety is due to recentism. I thus think this may violate wp:notnews and probably wp:crystal. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a snow keep, I myself doubt this will have any long term notability, but the community has spoken.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Reinado Internacional del Café. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinado Internacional del Café 2014

Reinado Internacional del Café 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a terrible lack of sources for this article. Perhaps, we should have Reinado Internacional del Café, but not on every individual edition of the pageant. I was editing the article of one of the participants, and tried finding a reliable source to say she participated, and I couldn't find a single one. Rob (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd probably be in favour of turning all the individual year articles into a single list article, featuring the winners and runners-up from each year. Most of the years simply have one reference announcing the winners, and that's it, or no references at all. A list would then at least combine the references. Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:32, 8 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 move to draft. Spartaz Humbug! 23:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerenityOS


SerenityOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find no mention of it anywhere as being a legitimate Operating System. It seems to be a hobby project on github. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SerenityOS has many contributors and although it is not an Operating System used by thousands, it does include all the features of an operating system. What you might consider legitimate is completely subjective. There is definitely interest in this operating system. People other than the original creator have added a disassembler, a debuggger, and a web browser to it. Mind you these are not port or copying existing code, rather original code of an entirely new web browser, and an entirely javascript engine all from scratch. This no small feat and at this point in time the number of devs working on this project is more than a couple people as a hobby. Even this article which has exists for less than 1 hour has already been translated to German. Sysrpl (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TempleOS is not a proper OS too, but it has its own Wikipedia article and there's no issue with that, it seems. SerenityOS has contributors, funding, information, quick availability (installing it and running a dev-build is easy) and it has a awful lot of more features. It can already be used for quite a lot of stuff. I do believe it's a legitimate OS. Also active in development and growing fast. Zlotny (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC) — Zlotny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@ User:Sysrpl I find this quick translation to spanish to be very suspiciuos. How did a dormant account with 2 edits find this article within 30 minutes of its creation and translated it as well in that time. After which he goes dormant once again. There are no Reliable sources that discuss this project or OS as you call it, in depth. No sources, no article. Other stuff exists is not a valid rationale for inclusion. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite Because I have an interest is software development and wrote the article then posted the link to the article to the SerenityOS community. This was before you started the AfD. I guess people are interested enough to post here about it. Do you think my secret plan was to create this wikipedia account 10+ years ago for the purpose of being a sock puppet? Sysrpl (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ MistyGraceWhite I'm an active developer on the Operating System along with other dozens of people and it reached to me that a wiki page was written. So i searched for it, found it, and translated. While I was doing that it got marked for deletion, which later brought me here. Also, a "dormant" account is not a valid one to contribute to wikipedia? I'm not active here but I don't think that's a valid reason to see an article creation/translation/edit sketchy. Zlotny (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite Regarding no reliable sources that discuss this project, it is regularly featured on ycombinator, and also has many articles written about it on the web here and here https://hackaday.com/tag/serenityos/ https://hackersonlineclub.com/serenity-graphical-unix-like-operating-system/ ... i can find articles all over. Does it have to come from forbes.com to reach your level of notability? Sysrpl (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Building an operating system and all its related components from scratch is a monumental effort, and I believe it shows best on Andreas's YouTube page: Despite producing rather niche content appealing only to a rather small subset of programmers interested in OS level development projects like this, Andreas has managed to amass over 7200 subscribers and over 480,000 cumulative views on his YouTube channel. [1] These really are significant figures for a 'hobby project'. Andreas has also stated his intention to eventually work on SerenityOS full time, once the project reaches a sufficient level of funding. He currently has 63 people sponsoring him with monthly contributions on the GitHub Sponsors program, [2] in addition to the 113 Patrons on Patreon. [3] I would argue that this level of financial support from this many people alone should be rather telling about just the level of excitement this project has brought to so many people around the world. Instead of deletion, I would propose that more citations are added to the page, as it seems to be lacking in that respect. vkoskiv (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC) — vkoskiv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@ vkoskiv I don't think linking to a Patreon donation page is appropriate. The SerenityOS article can be improved upon in many ways, but linking to donations should not be one of them Sysrpl (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ Sysrpl I wasn't suggesting that the citations I provided here should be added to the actual article. I was just citing them here to provide evidence of the significance of this project. If you feel that it's inappropriate to cite them even here, then that's fair and they should be removed. vkoskiv (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ Sysrpl Can you explain how you knew that the article had been translated to german at 13:07 when the german version went live at 16:27? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite I actually misspoke and meant to type Spanish. If someone already translated it to German, in addition to Spanish, then that only goes to show there are a lot of people who care enough about SerenityOS to translate it. And I don't speak or write German. Sysrpl (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:MistyGraceWhite I am sure there might be some suspicion of 'sockpuppetry' going on from your perspective, perhaps reasonably so. What's going on is that multiple independent observers of this project are just excited that there is a page on Wikipedia being made. There has been a lot of talk today on the public #serenityos IRC channel on the FreeNode network about this, and that's why you are seeing so much activity here all of a sudden. I can vouch that all the people here, myself included, are just passionate about the project and want to share it with the world. Hopefully this explanation clears any potential suspicion. Vkoskiv (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on currently available coverage. None of the discursiveness above makes up for the fundamental point that there is not sufficient reliable, substantial coverage. Admittedly it's not far off - one or two serious treatments by the non-blogosphere, I'd say - but not with what's presented at this point. And seeing how involved the editor is with the project, I suspect that the sources collected now already represent the totality of what is available. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I, the editor, am not involved with the project. I write a lot of software, like many other people online, but have not contributed to the SerenityOS project at all other than writing the first draft of the article. I have no vested interest. I am aware of it, like many others, but that and the fact that I develop software does not automatically connect people to every software project on the Internet. Regarding awareness of this project, it frequently tops the news list on Y Combinator. There are many pages on the web that discuss the project, and your suspicion that all the current references represent the totality of what is available is easily proved [7] Sysrpl (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a "substantial treatment", it's a minimalist listing. Sources of this type are functionally useless for establishing notability. If there is better stuff (you know, actual articles where people discuss it in detail), please let's have them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not a valid consideration at all - see WP:CRYSTAL. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid argument; sources or no go. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:Elmidae What part of that argument was 'invalid'? A source was provided as a link in the comment you replied to. 50 individual contributors to a hobby project on GitHub is significant.Vkoskiv (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not from the perspective of Wikipedia's requirements for demonstrated notability. The fundamental statement is this: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. 5 million views on YouTube do not make a song notable if the in-depth coverage is not there. Similarly, X number of commits or contributors on Github just do not figure into the decision. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish article looks good. This is the level of coverage that works. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Youtube page". YouTube. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
  2. ^ "Github Sponsors". Github. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
  3. ^ "Patreon page". Patreon. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and Draftify Starting to pick up some coverage, but it is very limited and subject specific. Awesomekling, If this got 1 good source like a wired article then put together with the existing sources it would pass WP:GNG. If this is a work in progress then it could recieve more coverage as it develops and picks up users, then an article could be justified. Move it to draft space until this happens. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per WP:NOTJUSTYET - looks like it could have potential in the future for an article, but I'm unconvinced that significant reliable independent sources exist at present for anything beyond an article consistent of "this thing exists". Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Two of the three Keep votes here are based on an article that isn't about her, and an unreliable one. I agree with the comment about unreliable sources; I see Reddit and more than one blog. There is a possbililty that this article could be improved with better sourcing; please contact me if anyone would like it restored to Draft: space to work on. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly recreate this page. Gaming doc (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palki Sharma Upadhyay

Palki Sharma Upadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient coverage in sources to meet WP:JOURNALIST, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : She has received a well-known and significant award link and won significant attention link. ~Manasbose (talk) 11:21 24 April 2020 (UTC).

The first source says that her channel has won the award for a show hosted by her. And the second source is not a reliable one. Akhiljaxxn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is also not independent (or even reliable) as it is owned by the same company that owns the channel which puts the notability of the award in question. The whole thing appears like PR gimmickry. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:JOURNALIST, and doesn't seem to pass WP:BASIC either. Sources like Justdial and Reddit don't provide notability, most of the rest are also questionable. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Manasbose the creator of this page misrepresenting the sources.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Writing articles for different media agencies doesn't make someone notable, it just makes them a journalist. Notability is not WP:INHERITED neither from the media agencies they have worked in nor from the people or objects they interact with during their work. Tayi Arajakate Talk 20:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:56, 8 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. Noone argues they pass gng and demonstrated not to meet prof. Argumente about scholorships are not compelling on their own. Spartaz Humbug! 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rifaat Hussain

Rifaat Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional profile, WP is not a LinkedIn. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If someone would show me how he meets WP:NPROF, which is the same as WP:NACADEMIC, I would be happy to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He doesn't appear to have much in the way of citations for WP:NPROF C1, nor signs of any of the other NPROF criteria. And I don't think hosting limited distribution talk shows for a short period is enough for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Qualifies for a relist to try and provide clarity about which NPROF/NACADEMIC criteria, if any, this person meets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My reason for !voting ‘keep’ was a. He is a department chair in a major national university and b. If he’s a visiting professor at Stanford then he has senior status within his field. Mccapra (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An average professor can likely arrange to be a visiting professor at Stanford, if she knows someone there and can swing it financially. And WP:NPROF C6 is not met by department chair. Are you arguing for WP:NPROF, or something else? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aaqib Anjum Aafī, a google books search is not so relevant to WP:NPROF. Do you want to argue for WP:NAUTHOR? That would generally require multiple reviews of his books in independent reliable sources. I didn't quickly find any, but would be interested if someone else did. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an uninvolved administrator let me drop a note. It's important for a person to base their participation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Quite a few !votes are examples of one or more arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In this case those who think it should be kept are probably best off stating which specific WP:NPROF criteria they feel Hussain meets while those who think it should be deleted would probably be best off stating specifically why they feel Hussain does not meet any of the NPROF criteria. Since I relisted this I will not be closing and I hope participants find this reminder useful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per Barkeep49, I'm going to talk through the WP:NPROF criteria. For C1, we usually look at citations. It depends on field, but I think in international relations it would be reasonable to expect a few papers with 100+ citations on Google Scholar (or adjusted and comparable total from elsewhere, if Google Scholar is not telling the whole story). Instead, as far as I can tell he maxes out at 20. I see no signs of awards for C2, C3. C4 would be met if he'd published a notable textbook or other innovation in higher ed (but I don't see any signs of that). C5 requires a named chair, which there is no evidence of. For C6, the directorship of RCSS is interesting, however, this appears to be a small outfit with perhaps 20 researchers, and I don't think it is met. C7 essentially says that GNG still applies to professors, and I don't see any arguments for GNG. C8 requires chief editorship of a well-established journal, of which there is no sign. Note that visiting professorships are irrelevant to WP:NPROF, and department chair does not meet C6. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing a more detailed explanation than I provided. No one has yet provide any evidence that he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See here for some previous discussion on Fulbright notability. I'd generally agree that a Fulbright per se does not confer notability, but it certainly adds to it. However, given the pool of potential applicants for a Fulbright is in the millions and 800 visiting scholar awards are given annually, someone who has one represents a very, very small minority and they are simply not easy to get. I think it is important in this case to see the Fulbright as contributing towards notability rather than taking a reductive approach and trying to find a single element signifying notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I agree that getting a Fulbright is an achievement, but the problem I'm having is that I'm not seeing that he meets any of the notability criteria for academics nor does he seem to meet WP:GNG. Being successful in your profession is not the same as being WP notable. There are many successful people who aren't considered WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't say anything more than quote WP:BASIC for your consideration: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.... Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 20:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jin-woo (baseball)

Kim Jin-woo (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of independent sources to establish significant coverage and reliability of content for WP:GNG PenulisHantu (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:47, 8 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. Tone 20:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Skoog

Oren Skoog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Significant credits in only Wasting Away and The Motel Life aren't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It is time we stopped having any article with only IMDb as a source. Get rid of the unsourced rubbish now. This should have been speedy deleted within a month of creation not allowed to exist for 14 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and most likely all three WP:NACTOR criteria. A search on google reveals little but a few trivial mentions such as this. Clearly fails NACTOR #2 and 3; claim to achieving #1 is disputable, but since there appears to be little coverage I would contend that such roles were probably not as significant as claimed... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 03:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Offshore International

Superior Offshore International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company that has been unsourced since creation in 2008. DePRODed by User:DGG with a suggestion that I look again for sources. I haven’t found any so AFAICS this fails WP:NCORP. However there may be local US press coverage that I can’t see, so perhaps someone else will find something. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
considering the company is no longe extant, this may require a search through older print sources as well. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worked in that industry for fifteen years before retraining to become a teacher. I did a fair amount of work in the Gulf of Mexico, and an outfit like that would have been exactly the sort of client my firm would have provided equipment and services to. I have not done an exhaustive search of printed sources to look for coverage, but going from the information in the article, I would be surprised if there was much in the way of significant coverage out there to find about them outside of trade magazines (the sort where you pay them to write an article about you, or you write your own article and get it printed for free if you also pay for advertising). I've also never heard of them, which adds to my feeling of 'I doubt we'll find anything' - I knew most of the major players in that sector in the period they were active. I can't hang a !vote on any of that, and I'm not in a position to do a search for sources, but thought I'd drop it in there. GirthSummit (blether) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, on reflection, I think I can summon up a !vote - I think CSD A7 applies, because the article fails to indicate how the company is significant. Operating 11 service vessels, providing ROV and saturation diver services, working in the sorts of places that have oilfields - this is a description that could be applied to any small- to medium-sized oilfield services company on the world. The prose could have been (and probably was) lifted directly from the website or brochure of any of a hundred such firms all over the world. The prose fails WP:SIGNIF, it's probably copyvio from a now-defunct website, the likelihood of anyone having written about them to CORPDEPTH standards seems slim, so delete. GirthSummit (blether) 15:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Girth Summit. Mbdfar (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not that this is particularly important, but I note that the original author was blocked as an advertising only account shortly after the creation of this unsourced article. The article has had the odd gnomish edit in the intervening years, but nobody else has made any substantive edits to the content since its creation. GirthSummit (blether) 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genkai Chōsen Distopia

Genkai Chōsen Distopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A cancelled arcade game that fails the notability criteria. Out of the twelve sources in this article, only one of them is reliable (Game Machine), and it doesn't even mention the game whatsoever. Floor 25 *might* be reliable, but I can't verify what it says or even what it is. There's nothing I could find about this game on places like the Web Archive, so I don't believe this is worthy of a Wikipedia page. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 14:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this page because it was an unreleased game by Toaplan (a notable shoot 'em up developer). Finding sources about it was NOT easy since it was one of the very last projects Toaplan did before facing bankruptcy. The Gamengai link translated the Floor 25 interview with Tatsuya Uemura, which mentions Distopia. There's also the BrainBusters book, which showcased the game in great detail. I forgot to include another reference that I found afterwards months later: Shooting Gameside, which also talked about the project. At this point, I believe you're deleting articles I've created on purpose. Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One other thing I also forgot to mention is the GSLA link, which contains an interview with Junya Inoue that has not been translated by shmuplations or any other website, which talks about his role with Distopia. Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the lack of any significant coverage from third-party publications. Developer interviews do not count as that, and neither do small paragraphs from random gaming magazines or random unreliable forum posts. There needs to be significant coverage of this game in order for it to have an article on Wikipedia, which I was unable to find. The burden is on you to establish notability. It's not my fault you've made so many poor-referenced video game pages. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 15:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Namcokid47: When did i say at any time and moment it was you fault that i made "poor-referenced" articles? Don't say stuff I've NEVER said to you. I know full-well that references and sources are a requirement for articles and I know the consequences for not meeting said criteria, but i'm just flat out tired of people taking the easy route of deleting articles for not being notable enough instead of putting effort to improve them. Roberth Martinez (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I take great offense at that last bit: "but i'm just flat out tired of people taking the easy route of deleting articles for not being notable enough instead of putting effort to improve them". By no means is deleting an article "the easy route". I'm deleting this article because of its poor sourcing and its failure to meet the notability guidelines, not on anything else. I looked high and low for sources on this game but found just about nothing. I looked at some of the sources you provided to try and justify why this article should be kept, and do not consider them reliable. Maybe Brainbuster could be okay, but even still that leaves three out of the twelve references being used. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not this again. Analyzing the sources I can access (seems that Brainbuster thing is potentially worthy?), there are simply no significant reliable sources here. An entry on arcade-history, no idea what Postback is (seems like a shmup blog with a forum?) that even admits "most likely, you never heard of it before", InsertCredit is a passing mention (before even getting to reliability), Neo Arcadia seems like a blog hosted by a group of fans seeing the equipe page (and the generic powered by WordPress note), Biglobe is a name drop, a tweet of a random person with a video of the game (need I say anything else?), a passing mention on Chibarei (which includes blog in its url) and 2 forum references. Searched a while in japanese, and found nothing sadly. Hence, it fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, KGRAMR, huge respect for your contributions most of the time (just seeing you expanded Snow Bros., a game that I loved back in my childhood made me happy). But "created this page because it was an unreleased game by Toaplan" is a wrong approach to go for, especially since WP:NOTINHERITED exists, and not all games of a notable developer can be notable. And please don't be disheartened by these AfDs, it's just that creating articles about cancelled AND Japan-only video games are hard to prove they are notable sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of cancelled Japanese video game articles on Wikipedia.. The difference between Genkai and those is that those articles offer significant coverage on the subject, both at release and retrospectively, by other publications. There's even ultra-obscure games like Starblade: Operation Blue Planet (an article which I made) that are at Good Article status and meet the criteria. Genkei lacks both of these, and it's why I'm nominating it for deletion; not based on personal vendetta, but doing what is right. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps belated response here, but Namcokid47, KGRAMR, I know AfDs are stressful, but please don't insult each other's editing practices. You guys are both good faith editors who put a lot of obvious work into your edits. You should be friends.
  • I'd like to weigh in on the issue at hand, but I'm not clear on why redirecting the article to Toaplan is not being considered. I haven't been hugely active on AfDs recently, but last I checked redirecting to the developer's article was the default alternative to deletion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I vote to delete this simply based on the fact that nothing reliable seems to cover these in detail. Redirects are acceptable if the subject can later become notable, as it simply allows one to remove the redirect. I can't see that happening with this game, nor do I see this as being a plausible search term. There's no real course of action here but to delete the article. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. @KGRAMR: I appreciate and celebrate your work and enthusiasm, but unfortunately I don't see how this article meets GNG or has long-term notability. I understand that sources are difficult to come by, but that's what makes it particularly difficult for others to contribute and add to the article as you'd like. I'd wouldn't object if this was closed as redirect, either. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 20:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Navabi

Armin Navabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

his article was recently deleted on fawiki, I did a thorough search and I couldn't find any proof of notability, fails GNG. Mardetanha (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly passed notability for having been covered in many national mainstream media outlets in several different countries, including but not limited to the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, the United States, Malaysia, Australia, Germany and Indonesia. The references contained in this article merely contain a fraction of the total available mainstream media coverage of Navabi and AR, not least because the article has scarcely been updated since 2017 (and it already passed notability then, so now even more). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Nederlandse Leeuw, notability is more than proved. Also, relevance of articles is contained within each edition of Wikipedia, so the deletion on fawiki is irrelevant unless the specific rationale for deletion is adduced (and this may plausibly lie behind), which could then be examined under enwiki policies. Qoan (say it!) 17:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is clearly notable. There are strong references included in the page and any news search brings up multiple reliable sources covering several years up to present. I suggest this is WP:SNOW snowballed. Mramoeba (talk) 09:36, 9 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. Tone 20:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youth in Business Africa

Youth in Business Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure if this submission passes GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Its formation date as stated in infobox suggests WP:RECENT. Hence this. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 20:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tauqir Zia

Tauqir Zia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO comrade waddie96 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. comrade waddie96 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:44, 10 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. Tone 20:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manaba

Manaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NCORP fail ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G11, G12). MER-C 14:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gallen

Christopher Gallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. KMagz04 (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. KMagz04 (talk) 14:08, 8 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. Tone 20:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Scottish Junior Football Central Division Two

2012–13 Scottish Junior Football Central Division Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable - effectively the 8th tier of Scottish football, which we don't do season articles for. Incomplete - last updated 8 years ago, source no longer works so couldn't be completed even if it was kept. Boothy m (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realise they are a separate system, that's why I used the word "effectively" Boothy m (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 20:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohinder Kumar

Mohinder Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCRICKET comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the cricket SNG might not be great, in this case I think it is doing its job perfectly. For an English or Australian cricketer who had played over 100 matches at the highest level of domestic cricket, we would have a raft of sources. However, as Kumar played in Pakistan, it is less straight-forward to find equivalent sources. Indeed, I for one wouldn't know where to start looking for Sindhi sources. If you are claiming the cricket SNG "clearly do not conform to GNG" in this case, then on that basis, we should change all SNGs to basically say "English-language subjects only, foreigners apply via the GNG". Harrias talk 07:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G12). MER-C 14:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Andrew Junker

Dr. Andrew Junker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, I couldn't find any reliable sources. Antila talk 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:31, 8 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. Consensus against a separate article. Potential content merge to individual articles, ping me if you need the content. Tone 20:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award shortlists

List of Academy Award shortlists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this discussion at the Film Project, this seems to fail WP:NOT#NEWS, and therefore is not notable. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, specifically, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Shortlists precede nominations, so they make up a kind of pre-qualifying round. From what I can tell, shortlists are reported in news articles with no real commentary since the real contest is among those who become the nominees. There could be instances where a widely-expected film does not get nominated, but these can be reported on individual articles. It does not warrant comprehensive lists like this. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The International Feature Film Oscar is a unique category, with one film being submitted per country. Based on your keep rationale, then you should also be including all 344 films in contention for the Best Picture from the last ceremony, for example. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. I would advocate for the removal of the pages for submissions for Best Animated Short Academy Award and submissions for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, in fact, as those are unwieldy and incomplete. The list of Academy Award shortlists, on the other hand, is finite to films under final consideration. Modern shortlists fuel a substantial amount of coverage throughout the awards season (e.g. [countless prediction articles such as this one]). Historical shortlists give a clearer picture of that year in film. Rburton66 (talk) 19:20, 8 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devdas (2010 film)

AfDs for this article:
Devdas (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, no significant coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Devdas story is notable and there are articles on other films of the same name, which is most of the source material I found. Outside of this, I can't find sourcing (in English) on this particular movie. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - After re-listing, it is quite clear there to keep the article. If there is a desire to rename it as suggested in the extended discussion, that should be done on the talk page. Fuzheado | Talk 16:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1392

Southwest Airlines Flight 1392 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see what's notable about this. One person got killed by a landing plane, that's extremely unfortunate but I don't see how having a full article about this contributes anything useful to the encyclopedia. If multiple people were killed, it would've made more sense to make a article. ShadowCyclone talk 12:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ShadowCyclone talk 12:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I cant see how a sucide is the fault of the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While there have been a few incidents in the past couple of years of people in the US climbing over airport fences and climbing onto or trying to climb onto a transport category aircraft while on the runway or taxiway, this is the only incident I can recall where someone has actually been killed. In addition, according to CBS, the plane did sustain very noticeable damage to its #1 engine. - Omega13a (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am usually very quick to nominate articles unworthy of mainspace, but this one patenetly is. All sorts of questions and all the likely answers will confirm the notability of this article!--Petebutt (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This is a good example of why articles on this sort of incident shouldn't be written on the day they happen. If the only additions to the article, in a year, are the name of the victim and "authorities could not determine what he was doing on the runway," are we going to go through another AfD in which a burst of routine coverage is used to argue that every plane incident is notable? Really, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON: too many responses above are saying that it might prove notable based upon ongoing coverage which hasn't had a chance to happen yet. I'm not going to argue for deletion because it's obvious that's going to be ignored as it stands, but the incident is not, from what I've seen here, notable yet. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing here to indicate that there will be any lasting effects to this incident beyond the one death and some bent metal (which has likely already been repaired). This is exactly why we have the policy of WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not particularly notable and really falls into WP:NOTNEWS, wikipedia is not a tabloid. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see that it has already been added there. Keep in mind that the airline has had hundreds of incidents in its history and only a few are listed there. This one is too minor to even be included and also note that it really has very little to do with the airline. It was not any failing on the part of the airline and is not going to result in any changes in airline procedures (airport maybe, but not airline). It could have been any aircraft he stood in front of, so hardly bares on the history of this airline, in any notable manner. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very few people actually read the non-guideline WP:TOOSOON before referencing it. WP:TOOSOON is about not creating articles of subjects that have not yet had significant coverage by reliable sources and passing WP:GNG which doesn't apply to this article. It's not about banning topics that only recently had significant coverage. Oakshade (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the discussion took place 2 days after the incident. We can look from some distance now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an unsusual aviation accident. The person wasn't an airplane employee either, making it more unusual as well, as only airport employees are allowed on airport grounds.ThatOneWikiMaster (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the arguments for deletion made here don't convince me, sorry - an incident's death count has little to do with its notability or lasting notability. The coverage received about this very unusual incident is more than routine or trivial, and easily passes WP:GNG. The fact that a security breach of this extent can happen in an airport in the United States, especially since the existence of the TSA, is alarming and adds to its significance. There is no doubt the findings of the ongoing investigations [15] will be extensively discussed by major media sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll be quite happy to step up and doubt away. If such ongoing coverage appears, then I will not oppose recreating an article; until then, we're in WP:CRYSTAL territory. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does WP:CRYSTAL have anything to do with this incident that already occurred? Zingarese talk · contribs 02:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, basing notability on coverage that hasn't happened yet? Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- but where did I base notability on “coverage that hasn’t happened yet?” I said above The coverage received about this very unusual incident is more than routine or trivial, and easily passes WP:GNG. Certainly the coverage vis-a-vis the investigation’s findings could further strengthen this incident’s notability, but its notability at present is already clear enough. Zingarese talk · contribs 13:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that isn't the case here. Sure it made the news when it happened, as the news stations jumped on it, then nothing. Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then something. A week later the NYT and other outlets reported the FAA is doing a thorough investigation of this and it's considered "rare."[16][17]Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All accidents are investigated, nothing notable there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your contention was there was a spurt of coverage and then "nothing." That was wrong. Not all accidents are this unusual, have this much WP:GNG passing coverage nor are all accidents as rare as this one. Oakshade (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (A7). Glen 13:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Email

Forward Email (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable service, no coverage independent of it's developer Praxidicae (talk) 12:21, 8 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. bibliomaniac15 06:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rayevsky (Japanologist)

Alexander Rayevsky (Japanologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks reliable independent sources to establish notability. It's not really clear what the claim of notability even is: as an academic, it's a clear WP:PROF fail; as a YouTuber he's about number eleventy million in the rankings; he plays in a completely non-notable band. Guy (help!) 10:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Harvest Church

Faith Harvest Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of notability apparently "biggest in Nyasaland" was enough to prevent speedy, but it shouldn't prevent afd. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. bibliomaniac15 01:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydeep Sarangi

AfDs for this article:
Jaydeep Sarangi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail [WP:NAUTHOR]] and WP:GNG. The references are currently exclusively Sarangi's own works. The coverage I could find is:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. userdude 07:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The review in the Statesman counts as significant coverage. The second Telegraph piece is more than trivial coverage (and the first provides some evidence towards notability in the area of Dalit literary studies). The Hindustan Times piece is more than trivial coverage and provides further evidence of recognition in Dalit studies. He holds an academic position, JSTOR search shows up some pieces, but he would fail ACADEMIC. He has produced some poetry which seems to have some evidence of publication. A Bangla search turns up nothing of note, but I would prefer someone with far better skills than mine to comment on this. Am leaning towards delete since not quite reaching the threshold of GNG. But interested in others' comments. Thanks for carrying out a proper BEFORE. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the first (2010) deletion discussion, Sarangi has continued to write, and has risen from associate professor to principal of one of the undergraduate colleges affiliated with the University of Calcutta. Citation counts and WorldCat holdings are unremarkable, but searches of EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest found some reviews to add to the one in The Statesman:
It's unfortunate that the second incarnation of the article was written by a student of Indian English Literature who seems to admire him. Such efforts rarely end well. Their version was gradually gutted until only a husk of a stub remains. There is enough source material out there now, however, to satisfy WP:WHYN, if someone is willing to write an article from it. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhee Sue-goo

Rhee Sue-goo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Oliva

Francis Oliva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He exists, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Pace Marshall

Stephanie Pace Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible redirect to Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy if found non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Another article about an accomplished professional who isn't notable in an encyclopedic sense. These types of articles always have a quasi-promotional tone to them, and exist primarily to serve as support to the subject's own Web site. Caro7200 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I acknowledge and appreciate the recent work that has gone into this article, and it is better tone-wise. I think she's still more an accomplished professional, though. Caro7200 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for reasons to support keep on this one, but I don't see WP:NAUTHOR. She's got one authored book, a book chapter (which should be considered as comparable to an article), and a book-length report of a committee she was on with 19 others. RSA fellowship doesn't look all that exclusive. The Order of Lincoln gives a stronger case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, was just about to make the RSA comment myself. Caro7200 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RSA Fellowship most definitely does not indicate notability. Some of my best friends etc etc....Mccapra (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's an in-depth profile at the Chicago Tribune upon her stepping down from IMSA, now added to the article. The Order of Lincoln also contributes to notability. (She also served as chancellor of that organization for 3 years [27]). When combined with a reasonable number of reviews of her book, I think that this meets GNG. The article had moderate WP:PROMO issues, which TJMSmith has done a lot of good work towards fixing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re this added work: Fry, Heather; Ketteridge, Steve; Marshall, Stephanie, eds. (1999). A handbook for teaching & learning in higher education: enhancing academic practice - is this the same Stephanie Marshall? Caro7200 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I removed it! TJMSmith (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still see this as a case of a professional with inherited notability. She was president of a "three-year residential public secondary education institution," which can be expanded upon in that article's history section. She helped to edit one book; the chapter she contributed is about the school where she worked. She wrote one book. Google Scholar indicates that she's written or contributed to at least 25 articles. Is that enough? Please don't think I mean this sarcastically; I don't. Caro7200 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Classified information in the United States. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Form 312

Standard Form 312 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 08:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge The U.S. security classification system and its use or abuse have been the subject of numerous articles and books and whistleblowers and non-disclosure agreement in general have also been important topics of public policy discussion. This form is a major component of the secrecy system for good or ill. Classified information in the United States is already a very long article. Adding the content of this article with a redirect from its title wouldn't do much harm but I don't see any benefit either. We have many subject areas where small aspects are pared off into their own article, which tends to keep things more manageable.--agr (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, but where are the sources that discuss the significance of this form? what i see at the moment is an article that confirms that the form exists, not enough to meet notability guidelines. Similar situation with Standard Form 86, Standard Form 50. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Spry

Bailey Spry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR: only significant credit appears to be in It Follows. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 09:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mittal Hospital

Mittal Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A typical WP:GNG issue. No credible sources are available to justify this organization's presence on Wikipedia. Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Timothy Carden

Paul Timothy Carden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Notability is not inherited just because a movie he worked on won an award. Technically the whole sound team "win" the Emmy, but this guy doesn't really inherit notability for that. From what I can tell, he wasn't even the leader of that team. No significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. The most we can do is point at IMDB and say "he worked on this stuff". That's what IMDB is for, not Wikipedia. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. userdude 07:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. userdude 07:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago

List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long and poorly-referenced list of non-notable entities. Per WP:NOT a directory (especially a "simple listing") there is little or no sourced information attached to the list entries, no clear way to tell if the items actually belong on the list or if they have been added later by vandals. At WT:CATHOLIC#Lists of parishes, schools, religious on diocesan article pages we discussed the removal of such lists from diocesan articles per the above guidelines. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the following reasons:
1. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information states: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." - Several such lists in fact have the detail put into such context:
2. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools states: "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body)." - In the United States most Catholic schools are directly operated by the archdiocese, so the archdiocese is the " school district authority" for these schools.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice is the essay/article guidelines advice for the Schools WikiProject and it states: "Non-notable school articles are generally blanked and redirected to the school district's article (USA)"
3. Practice is just as important of a consideration as what the policies and guidelines strictly say. Wikipedians have been listing "elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability" in these lists for over a decade, and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES means that the solution was to merge them into lists.
Also bear in mind this will need the input from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists projects. Because various topics intersect here, it is important to get feedback from a broad variety of Wikipedians.
Keep per WTM. I'll also note that the nom has valid concerns but that deletion is not for cleanup purposes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of every single thing that exists, and we certainly do not need to cross-categorise Catholic schools to a specific region. Ajf773 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see the comment below regarding LISTN WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The archdiocese managed most (not all) Catholic schools, and makes the decision whether those that it does manage are closed (as is seen in the articles I cited). This is why the lists are by archdiocese. Now, for independent Catholic schools (those not operated by an archdiocese but merely associated with it) it may be a different manner. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dioceses are geographically based: each American county is assigned to a diocese: Chicago's archdiocese covers Cook and Lake counties, so all Catholic schools in these two counties would be covered. This geographic organization is no different from the countywide public school districts (for example in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia) which have lists of their respective schools. Public school lists are already shown to be discriminate and to fulfill the gazeteer functions of this encyclopedia, and therefore fulfill the encyclopedic criteria. BTW school districts also don't necessarily operate every single public school in their boundaries due to the existence of charter schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I meant to say WP:LISTN instead. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I make lists of schools because Wikipedia does fulfill the purpose of being a gazetteer (this is stated in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)). LISTN states: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." I feel that listing Catholic schools fulfills the gazetteer function of Wikipedia. This is in addition to the reliable secondary source coverage on Catholic schools closing throughout the United States. The National Center for Education Statistics documents the K-12 schools in the U.S., and this is similar to the organizations listed at Gazetteer#United_States such as the United States Geological Survey for locations. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ajf773: Which says "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." (in other words it is okay to use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when the comparison is correct and the essay page explains this). List of Pokemon is a featured article, so my point is that we do in fact list things not individually notable. The question is whether it is okay to list this particular group of individually non-notable things or not. I pinged since OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged."
  • What about article x? also explains "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." - But in this case List of Pokemon is now a featured article, not merely a random article created by somebody. The point I made is that lists of "non-notable" items are acceptable, and I explained above why there is an informational/educational purpose in this list.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I also realize there are fictional character lists like List of Animal Crossing characters and these lists have existed on WP for over a decade. When notability of a list is considered, one should make a case whether there is a proper informational purpose as per LISTN. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the best of this should be covered in an unwritten article on the history of education in the archdiocese. I'd assume there already is a list of high schools in the archdiocese. If not, pruning the article in question to that might make sense per WP:ATD, but if the lidt exists, I do not see it as a good redirect target. John from Idegon (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John from Idegon: What would be a better redirect target for Catholic schools directly operated by an archdiocese? I feel that the archdiocese from a U.S. parochial Catholic school standpoint has the same role as a school district from a public school standpoint.
    • An example of a public school list I created was List of Houston Independent School District elementary schools, simply because I needed a common redirect target for HISD elementary schools, and because HISD operates so many of them. These "in archdiocese" ones are just Catholic versions of this one.
    • There's also a discussion of a similar list at Talk:List_of_Dallas_Independent_School_District_schools#Value_of_the_list,_in_general in regards to the listing of elementary schools, particularly the need for a redirect target.
    • The reasons why I created these lists: 1. The archdiocese's primary job is not to operate schools but to operate churches, so the details on school closings can't take too much WP:WEIGHT in a history section; these lists allow me to expand upon the schools more. 2. There are cases where either the elementary/K-8 school itself is notable, or the affiliated parish/church is notable (so the school redirects to the church). The notable schools should be listed too, but then the ordinary reader will expect to see the rest. 3. Schools can have additional details covered by newspapers that give a full history of what happened at the school: there have been cases of schools about to close, be given reprieves, and then get closed years later. It gives the reader a full picture of Catholic education and Catholicism in the archdiocese and the communities within it. Also 4. It allows me to put the lists in the jurisdiction of the schools and lists WikiProjects.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is exactly what lists are for and it fits well with the other entries in the Category:Lists of Catholic schools in the United States. Sourcing is appropriate already and additional sources have been added. Alansohn (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Add sources if needed. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Graywalls (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Alliance

Portland Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:NORG based on sources cited, and sources I could locate. It seems to be of mostly local interest that is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clusterpoint

Clusterpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has had a sourcing banner on it since 2015. All the sources in the article seem to be primary or trivial coverage. Also, nothing comes up in a BEFORE that I could find (so it fails notability per NCORP) and the article has mainly been edited by an IP user that might have a COI. Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: Weird, it doesn't come up for me when I do a Google Book search of "Clusterpoint." Even when searching for the book title with the companies name. Do you have a link to where the company is mentioned in the book, know the page numbers, or can you at least say how in-depth the coverage of it is? One sources doesn't necessarily make it notable anyway, but i'd still like to know, so the details can be added to the article if it is kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind. I see it comes up when clicking the link in the AfD but I guess it doesn't when just searching for it with the search bar for some reason. Interesting. That said, it seems most of what is covered in the book could be considered trivial and not work for notability by WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the normal answer when the nom. hasn't found something. It's far from trivial and I'm standing by keep. On top of this it is the project not the company which is of importance.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I've been here a while and haven't heard anyone say that doing a search on Google books gets different results then clicking the AfD banner does, but whatever you say. You know you can easily go to Google Books and do a search for Clusterpoint to confirm that nothing comes up right? It would be a lot better then accusing some random person on the internet of being a lier. I didn't say you should change your vote anyway. So, nice job treating me like a give a crap about something I don't. I could really care less how you vote. I was simply pointing out something I found interesting. Also, I'm not sure what your talking about with the whole "the project is important" thing, but as you should know notability isn't inherited or based on your personal opinion of "importance." Again though, I could really care less how you vote. If it's based on bad logic that doesn't follow the guidelines the closing admin will likely weed it out. If not though, bad votes and articles being kept because of them are pretty run of the mill anyway. So however people vote or whatever happens its no sweat off my back. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, a lot of people probably say sources are trivial because often times they are. "keep people" like to throw out whatever random crap source they can because they think will persude the next person to vote keep without them looking into the quality of the source. People say a source is trivial when it is so other people will look into it instead of just automatically voting keep "because sourcing." I'm pretty no one is making those comments because they think the person providing the bad source will change their vote. No one does. Nor should they. The dice fall where they fall. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The book Fundamentals of Software Startups contains an in-depth case study on "The Rise and Fall of a Database-as-a-Service Latvian Unicorn" where the abstract says the the company collapsed and was forced to file for insolvency due to liquidity reasons in 2017. None of this information is in the article. Plus, the website is still up and the company appears to be alive (and well?). The book acknowledges that one of the co-authors is an ex-employee of the company but the book contains a lot of references and is obviously not relying on inside information and therefore contains Independent Content. I'm leaning towards Keep based on the book and on the Gartner profile when the company was selected as a Cool Vendor. HighKing++ 18:22, 18 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) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synch roll

Synch roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't even understand what this article is or how it's notable. The article obviously contains original research and it has been unsourced since November 2006. Kori (@) 03:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found one seemingly relevant use of "synch roll": [28]. However, the meaning of the term in this context may not be the same as in the article. Besides a bunch of WP:CIRCULAR mentions, I could not find any other relevant use of "synch roll" or "sync roll". userdude 03:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna McNee

Lorna McNee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject does not meet WP:GNG criteria; has made an appearance on a baking show and has proven no notability outside of this. DarkGlow (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As written right now the article is a stub. A short google search shows plenty of newspaper coverage of this person and notes she is chef at a Michelin starred restaurant, who also won the TV competition, not just "made an appearance", and is Scottish Chef of the Year. I'm inclined to upvote if the article is improved with the media mentions. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 07:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valley, Calaveras County, California

Happy Valley, Calaveras County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign of an "unincorporated community" here. Map label is in the style and typeface of a geographic feature, not a community. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Here is an article from the local historical society that verifies that there was a Happy Valley settlement going back to the Gold Rush era. The area was settled especially by French immigrants who established a vineyard, built a stone winery and engaged in mining for several decades. Descendents of these French settlers still live in the area. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a photo from the Library of Congress that shows buildings in the Happy Valley community, taken as part of the Historic American Buildings Survey in the 1930s. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a book that asserts that the French settlement in Happy Valley predates the Gold Rush, and that the oldest building in Calaveras County is an adobe house that was part of that community. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the French settlement, the sources mostly describe a dispersed population in the area. I'm not sure that this justifies the "unincorporated community" label without a source describing it as such, but I do see the potential to write an article on the human history of the valley. –dlthewave ☎ 15:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Valley, California

Willow Valley, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable valley mislabeled as a "populated place" by GNIS. Topo maps show the label in a typeface that is used for geographic features, curved to follow the shape of the valley. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This appears to have a populated place at one point (and not just a valley). In a 1924 book, Willow Valley is listed as one of the school districts in Nevada County. ([36]) Other publications discuss stamp mills or mining operations in Willow Valley. ([37] [38]) Willow Valley is also listed in a 1958 and a 1968 roster of government officials published by the California Secretary of State. ([39] [40]) A publication from 1867 also talks about Willow Valley and lists some of the people/businesses that are there. ([41]) This leads me to believe that it was a populated place at one point at time, even if it is not now. Therefore, this article meets WP:GEOLAND. MarkZusab (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These sources support the claim that people lived in the valley, but I'm not finding any coverage for a distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Everything found so far is consistent with what the topo maps show: this is a vaguely defined locale, now really something of a suburb of Nevada City. I could find no evidence that anyone now thinks of this as a "community", and really, just being a community isn't enough. And I don't see anything in these various references that could be used to expand the article much if at all: they are just passing mentions as the location of something or other, except for those two "roster" references; and unless someone can look at a real copy of the work in question, I at least can't tell what "Willow Valley" is appearing in a list of. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this clearly passes WP:GEOLAND based on a newspapers.com source search with articles such as the obituary here showing it's understood to be a community, and [42] showing it was at least a voting precinct. Even if this isn't a community and rather a geographic feature (which I doubt) there's heaps of coverage about the mining and school in the vicinity. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Gilani Taylor

Ayesha Gilani Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

winner of a local beauty pageant, non notable. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - she is also anchor with VOA Urdu. Coverage exists in Urdu. Störm (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments. Störm (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Smith (racing driver)

Jonathan Smith (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT as his only starts came in NASCAR K&N Pro Series East, a non-professional series. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joost Rietdijk

Joost Rietdijk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable BLP. WP:BEFORE shows some listings of credits but zero substantial coverage. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden Iran

Forbidden Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films) Pahlevun (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Horse Eye Jack. That's still not enough to establish notability per WP:NFO criteria 1, which says The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Find one more and I will withdraw nomination, or establish notability with general notability guideline, because it fails at the moment. Pahlevun (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It passes WP:GNG so WP:NFILM is irrelevant... Also its not strictly speaking a “film.” Why don’t you think it passes GNG? We have feature pieces in multiple WP:RS. Of the NYT, WAPO, and Amnesty which are you arguing is not a reliable source? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not meet WP:GNG either, because two of the sources fail to qualify. Amnesty International link is a press release (not a report), and is not a "Significant coverage", but a trivial mention, per WP:GNG. Moreover, washingtonpost.com link is not a piece by The Washington Post, it is transcript of an interview with the director of this show and is published in "PAID PROGRAMMING" section ("Sponsored Discussion Archive: This forum offers sponsors a platform to discuss issues, new products, company information and other topics") and includes such text such as Forbidden Iran airs Thursday, Jan. 8 at 9 p.m. ET (check local listings). So, it does not qualify as a source to establish notability, because it is not only paid material, but also is not independent of the subject (work produced by a person affiliated with this subject) per WP:GNG. Note that WP:GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Pahlevun (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this Amnesty Report go into enough detail for you [44]? It was also broadcast as part of PBS’s Frontline television program after it premiered in Europe, thats *wide* exposure. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty is still a trivial mention. Not every footage used in Frontline is notable, see here. Pahlevun (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, that new one is *not* a trivial mention. It wasn’t footage used in Frontline btw, it was broadcast in its entirety as an episode of Frontline/World. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. The Amnesty coverage (both sources) constitutes fairly trivial coverage specifically of Arzhang Davoodi, who is apparently one of several interviewees in the documentary. In additional to Amnesty, I found coverage in:
For coverage not about Davoodi, I found:
  • Short review in New York Magazine: [48]
  • Coverage in Brown Daily Herald: [49]
  • Minor coverage in Payvand Iran News: [50]
I find this, in conjunction with the NYT full-length review, sufficient for GNG. userdude 03:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suitcase Clinic

Suitcase Clinic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the WP:NORG level of notability from a quick check and it is almost entirely based off of a University of California, Berkeley student newspaper. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Academic Medicine article appears to be written by one of the organizers of the program, making it not independent (per WP:ORGIND). The berkeleyside article is written by a "Guest contributor". The Street Spirit article appears to be valid for NORG. userdude 23:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC); struck per Graywalls (below) 00:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply @BriefEdits:. #1, no, because "The article originally appeared on Berkeley News, published by UC Berkeley." #2 is a no, because Street Spirit is a local, specialized paper "Street Spirit is an independent newspaper in the East Bay dedicated to covering homelessness and poverty from the perspective of those most impacted". meaning they focus on issues that are about or important to the specific audience in the local area, which means that it fails WP:AUD criterion of NCORP. #3, finally the journal is also a no because ALAN STEINBACH, MD, JOHN SWARTZBERG, MD, AND VERONA CARBONE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment follow up @BriefEdits:, please have a look at their website as well as WP:ORGIND policy which explains what's considered DEPENDENT coverage on Wikipedia:"any material written or published, including websites, by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it, directly or indirectly". I am wondering if you realized Suitcase Clinic is ran by UC Berkeley and the two of the sources you said are independent are related to UC Berkeley at the time you placed your input. Graywalls (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry for the delay. Upon further consideration, I am comfortable with changing my vote to Delete per the notes mentioned by the other editors. Further research have yielded mentions in other scientific journals but not as a primary subject. – BriefEdits
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Dwaro:,The question earlier to you was not addressed which prompted me to look a bit closer. Your contribution pattern where in 8 or 9 of AfDs, only ones in which I've participated or created, but the timing of your "keep" inputs are so close together that it suggests actual research wasn't done on your part to come up with "keep" input. It seems peculiar that the you and another editor independently concluded incorrectly the same way at the same time.@HighKing: I maintain my position on delete. Opting for merge would encourage the culture of creating a bunch of non-notable thing, then resisting deletion by diverting them to "merge" only after "keep" argument can not be sustainedGraywalls (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graywalls. They might have been close to each other, but I have evaluated the sources of those articles. Even if my viewpoints disagree with the consensus, a discussion happens, which is a good thing. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, no problems arise from keeping articles that are properly sourced. Dwaro (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Deserves a Roof

Everyone Deserves a Roof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG, WP:NORG Graywalls (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. bibliomaniac15 01:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Mission

Midnight Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Notability issues raised six years ago. Hasn't demonstrated notability. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the current content is promotional and thin, going online, some of the Southern California coverage is actually remarkably focused and critical. I'll need to sift through them more carefully, but will add a few to move the page in the right direction. If not keep since WP:CORPDEPTH is a high bar to meet, redirecting it to an appropriate section on Skid Row and having a bullet point mention might also be ideal. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment specifically which sources? It doesn't appear that the subject quite pass the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Some of those contextless link drops in the page are about the founder, but not so much on the organization. The NBC Los Angeles lacks WP:AUD as it's in the local news section and it's only a few sentences and photos that appears to be a routine thing news channels do to show what's happening in the local area. Graywalls (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:54, 15 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) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrill Society

Shrill Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. The sources cited in the article are mostly trivial mentions of the company or its products. Some sources go into more depth on the products, but only a few discuss the company in any significant detail. Those that do are not independent or reliable, with the exception of two borderline sources (people.com and the second bustle.com). I have made a more detailed analysis at Talk:Shrill_Society#2020-04-30_source_assessment. No more suitable sources were found. Overall, I do not believe that the criteria in WP:NORG have been met for this subject. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib boop or snoop 02:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WMCT-TV

WMCT-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a small-town local public-access channel. Does not meet WP:ORG notability guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib boop or snoop 02:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhirami Suresh

AfDs for this article:
Abhirami Suresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable actress and singer. who does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO - no notable roles, contribution, or coverage so fails WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC) (reply to AfD) Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejía

Death of Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejía (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The very definition of WP:BLP1E. Natureium (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rab V. "The lawmakers demanded that ICE give a briefing and documentation by May 22 on the death of Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia, who died of complications from COVID-19 while in custody." (Source) Xicanx (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I disagree with the nominator's assertion that this meets all three requirements listed in WP:BLP1E (specifically conditions 2 and 3). Point 2 states that a biography for an otherwise low-profile individual should be redirected to the event which is exactly the case here: Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejía. The significant coverage in WP:RS and responses by numerous WP:N organizations and officials seems to contradict the claim that "the event is not significant." TJMSmith (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dave Coulier. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Same Picture of Dave Coulier Every Day

The Same Picture of Dave Coulier Every Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged this as failing WP:GNG but after some digging decided to go the AfD route. None of the coverage is significant - it's all passing with the exception of an interview of the founder, such as a couple sentence list in the A.V. club, or the use of it as an example in a single article in Austin. The academic source does not mention the blog at all. SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comments. I have expanded the article with more information and included additional media sources covering the webpage. Additionally, a BBC story that I believe was significant coverage was previously linked via the BBC's YouTube, but I have now updated that link to the BBC's main website to make the source easier to recognize. I do believe the blog meets notability requirements. I have a listed COI though, so I am trying to get this over the line of notoriety with as light of a touch as possible so more neutral parties can expand it in the future.

Manwithcups (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medium is self-published and wouldn't count in a notability analysis. The Austin Chronicle is just a passing mention that the blog exists. I'm not familiar with the Daily Dot, but interviews typically don't qualify for notability either at least with regards to people - I'm not 100% sure how to analyse an interview with someone about their blog, for the purposes of determining notability of the blog. SportingFlyer T·C 15:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I ask you to review and consider the referenced BBC Trending story on the subject? Also, not sure if this matters but the Wikipedia article did go through the draft approval process and was approved on May 7 before it was marked for deletion. I did not post it directly to live. Manwithcups (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I unfortunately cannot access the BBC video on their website, will try and take a look on YouTube. I did check the history and I don't know why it was accepted shortly after a rejection by the same user, without adding anything to the article without filling in references. In any case, it doesn't matter that you didn't post it directly to mainspace, and hopefully it's clear none of this is personal? Also, I'm perfectly happy with a merge as proposed by Devonian Wombat. SportingFlyer T·C 01:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I understand it is not personal. The Wikipedia guidelines for new posts that are rejected that I read suggest interacting with other editors which is why I am staying engaged. Honestly the whole process has been a little bewildering but interesting. I asked the editor that initially rejected it what other sources were needed and they said on second look they decided to approve it. That conversation on May 7 is here:[55]Manwithcups (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dave Coulier. Of the three sources identified above, Medium is an unreliable self-published source, the Austin Chronicle is just a passing mention, and while The Daily Dot is generally reliable per WP:RSP, an interview with the founder of a blog about the blog is still pretty clearly a primary source. There is one source that might help, this: [56] by the Toronto Standard, but really I am not sure if that is enough coverage to count towards a pass. However, according to this article: [57], Coulier himself has actually taken an interest in this, so perhaps creating an "In popular culture" section on his page and adding a sentence or so about this would be good. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to main subject. There is not enough notability about this subject. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 23:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winifred Freedman

AfDs for this article:
Winifred Freedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage doesn't rise very far above mere mentions. The prior AfD was overturned as move to draft instead of deletion due to the close emphasizing the article's status as an unsourced BLP as opposed to a consensus in the discussion, but I'm not seeing how this meets WP:GNG. The vast majority of listed roles appear to be exceedingly minor, so the subject doesn't have a particularly strong claim to WP:NACTOR either. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Keep: Just to add to the nominator's comments about the history of this AfD, following the review it was suggested that the article be worked on and could then be moved to the mainspace, such that a fresh AfD could occur to resolve the unresolved question of notability—which is what I did. The nominator has now called for a fresh AfD, which I think is appropriate, because notability is not clear-cut in this case. In terms of my vote, I basically echo what I said at the last AfD—I think WP:NACTOR is made out, with some main roles in plays and a couple of notable roles in TV programs; but the case for WP:GNG is weaker. However, I think more sources could probably be found. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Based on the sources that have been identified in this AfD, I believe the subject has a real shot at WP:GNG. While there is no one in-depth article dedicated to the subject, the cumulative effect of the reviews and praise she has received over a significant period of time shows, in my opinion, a sufficient level of notability which would justify an article. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weak keep - I usually avoid the actor AFDs--I think it's hard to discern the true notability of character actors with decades of professional experience. I also echo Cardiffbear88 and John Pack Lambert, and don't think Wikipedia should be a mirror of IMDB, even if I trust Wikipedia much more. Having said that, this character actor had memorable--and therefore significant (in my opinion)--roles in The Last American Virgin, Naked Gun, and The Fabulous Baker Boys. She also was a cast member of Joanie Loves Chachi, which for decades was shorthand for notorious TV bomb/worst show ever. I also agree with Rosguill that there aren't a lot of sources to be found. I think Wikipedia, if possible, should better define how to treat character actors. Caro7200 (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Invitation to John Pack Lambert, Bearian, IphisOfCrete and TonyTheTiger, who participated in the first AfD a couple of weeks ago, to take part in this one (if they wish). Dflaw4 (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no way this passes GNG. LA Weekly is not generally considered a supewr reliable source, and when almost all sources are from one localized publication we are not really seeing demonstration of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whilst sources have been found by Dflaw4, I’m not convinced these help to establish notability. Two mention the subject only by name as part of theatre reviews. One, a local source, is a one-paragraph name check that mentions one of the subject’s TV credits. Almost all of the existing article content is unreferenced, with no evidence of sources that could verify it, and and in the absence of such sources, it must be deleted. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am also unsure that the LA Times source is the proper Winifred Freedman. It is unlikely that at age 29, she played an 8-year-old. I reassert my AFD1 arguments.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Dflaw4. I found and added two reviews that speak of her performances in theater work. I found her mentioned in a number of other articles, but as I imagine those would be viewed as passing mentions, I did not add them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • DiamondRemley39 thanks for finding these. I would still question whether local theatre reviews, presumably not focusing largely on the subject’s contribution, would indicate notability - especially as the majority of the article’s current content is unsourced and based on her minor roles in TV and film work. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. The sources, from "local productions" (in Los Angeles, a major theatre hub), are from reliable secondary sources (such as the Los Angeles Times), and contribute to the case of notability, though no, they may not bring her past the threshold of it. That's why I went weak keep. Had there been more reviews found, or some LA theatre awards won, I'd not have qualified with "weak." They do mention her work and not just a little in comparison with the work of others in the productions. Notability is one thing and unsourced minor film and tv credits another. They could and probably should be removed, but that is the stuff of talk pages, not AfD. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very minor in most cases. I don't think unnamed roles in single episodes of shows or films contribute to notability. Examples: Nurse #4, Girlfriend, Ticket Taker, Bad Singer, Pit Recorder, Operator, Pharmacist, Chief's Secretary, Lunch Lady, Facilities Coordinator. --Kbabej (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think anyone here said they did. Not every word in articles must contribute to notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources do not amount to sigcov. The Design for Living ref is literally a sentence mention in a regional paper; the others are similar. The San Bernardino County Sun ref is at least a paragraph (instead of a single sentence), but it is for a non-notable event and isn't about her work. I echo Johnpacklambert who stated on another recent AfD Wikipedia should not be an IMDB mirror. --Kbabej (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: More sources: here, here, here, and here (my apologies if any of them overlap with DiamondRemley39's sources). Also, from a ProQuest article regarding her performance in Found a Peanut ("Cracking Open Peanuts: Exploring Jewish Identity and the Theatre of the Holocaust in Donald Margulies's Found a Peanut" by Joshua Robert Horowitz, 2015, at page 20):
    "Overall it appears that reviews either fall in love with the character and plot line of Margulies’s play, or find it very troublesome. Throughout the history of the play’s productions, two patterns seem to evolve. In the reviews often times Joanie and Little Earl stick out as the characters whose actors tend to shine. The New York Time reviewer Frank Rich favourably mentioned Peter MacNichol as Little Earl in the New York City debut, and, in a review of a Los Angeles production, Sylvie Drake mentioned Winifred Freedman standing out as Joanie." Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just commenting that I looked at the sources provided by Dflaw4 in their most recent top-level comment and I think that we're still short of GNG. Each has at most a sentence or two mentioning the subject acting in a role. I don't see how you could write an article based on these sources without resorting to synthesis. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a rare case where notability is subjective. Her roles were substantial enough to pass WP:NACTOR, although many source are lost now because they were pre-Internet. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania

General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find evidence that such a party existed. All references I've found so far point to the Bund in Lithuania remaining part of the General Jewish Labour Bund. For example;

  • "At the beginning of the February Revolution, large parts of the Russian Empire, such as Poland (Warsaw, Lodz), the Northwest Region (Grodno, Bialystok, Vilnius), Lithuania (Kovno), were occupied by the German army, and their political fate had Separated long ago by the fate of Russia." Yiddish: צום אנהייב פון דער פעברואר־רעוואלוציע זיינען גרויסע טיילן פון דער רוסישער אימפעריע, ווי פוילן (ווארשע, לאדזש), די צפוןמערב געגנט (גראדנע, ביאליסטאק, ווילנע), ליטע (קאוונע) געווען אקופירט דורך די דייטשע ארמייען, און זייער פאליטישער גורל האט זיך צעשיידט אויף לאנג פונם גורל פון רוסלאנד.[1] - so prior to the 1917 February Revolution, Vilna had been in the Northwest Region (di tsfunmerb gegnt), along with present-day Belarus
  • "[o]f all the Bund's committees, the so-called gegnt-komitet in Lite was the last to be reorganised,379 which was partially due to Vilna's unclarified status"[2] - i.e., even at December 1918, the Lithuania (Lite) had a Regional Committee ('gegnt-komitet').
  • "The right wing of the Bund, based in the Vilna Regional Committee, used the Unzer shtime, edited by Max Weinreich, to advocate Bundist participation in the kehile."[3] (Dec 1918)
  • There was a General Kombund Committee of Lithuania... but of the Communist Bund (Russia) or a separate party? - "В 1920 г . переехал в Литву , был кооптирован в члены главного комитета Комбунда Литвы — левой оппозиционной части Бунда . организаторов ликвидации Комбунда в июне 1921 г ."[4]
  • "In Moscow in November 1920, I was delegated to the Plenum of the Russian Central Committee of the "Bund" in Moscow as the messenger [representative?] of the General Committee of the "Bund" in Lithuania" (Yiddish: אין מאָסקווע אין נאָוועמבער 1920 ווער איך דעלעגירט צום פלענום פון רוסי לענדישן צענטראַל ־ קאָמיטעט פון „ בונד " אין מאָסקווע ווי דער שליח פון הויפּט - קאָמיטעט פון „ בונד " אין ליטע) - I'm not 100% sure whether the person talks about the Kombund or the Bund (S.D.) here... but appears that there wasn't a separate Bund party in Lithuania as of Nov 1920...
  • "The Vilno Bund organization, which considered itself more Russian than Polish, had split in 1920, the vast majority of its members going over to the Communist Bund."[5]
  • From the Polish Bund wiki article: "The Bund branch in Wilno[6] (now Vilnius) had split along the same lines as the rest of the Russian Bund in 1920, into a left-wing majority group and a right-wing minorities group. The latter was associated with the Russian Social Democratic Bund. Both groups were reluctant to join the Polish Bund, even after it had become apparent that Wilno was an integrated part of the Polish state. The Wilno Social Democratic Bund distrusted the Polish Bund for its overtures to the Comintern, stating that the Polish Bund had ceased to be a Social Democratic organization.[7] In 1923 both Wilno Bund groups merged into the Polish Bund.[7]" - So the right-wing Vilna Bund presumably continued to be part of the Russian Bund (S.D.) until the merger, but what about the Vilna left-wing Bund? What role did it have after the Bund in Russia proper had merged with RKP(b) and the Kombundists in Kovno had merged with the Communist Party of Lithuania? Soman (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [8] has a mention in passing of there being a small Bundist presence in 1930s Kovno. Presumably remants of the Social Democratic Bund minority there, but not clear if still part of the Russian SD Bund party or a separate party. I'd say we can still go ahead with the AfD, but it is worth checking further on what happened with the SD Bund there. --Soman (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ R.R. Abramovitch. In tsvey rev?olutsyes Di geshikh e fun a dor. Рипол Классик. p. 43. ISBN 978-5-88109-329-7.
  2. ^ Susanne Marten-Finnis (2004). Vilna as a Centre of the Modern Jewish Press, 1840-1928: Aspirations, Challenges, and Progress. Peter Lang. p. 131. ISBN 978-3-03910-080-4.
  3. ^ Yivo Annual. Northwestern University Press and the Yivo Institute for Jewish Research. 1991. p. 70.
  4. ^ Partijos istorijos institutas (Vilnius, Lithuania) (1966). Вильнюсское подполье: воспоминания участников революционного движения в Вильнюсском крае, 1920-1939 гг. Вага. p. 27.
  5. ^ Bernard K. Johnpoll (1967). The politics of futility: the General Jewish Workers Bund of Poland, 1917-1943. Cornell University Press. p. 103.
  6. ^ Snyder, Timothy (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300105865.
  7. ^ a b Johnpoll, Bernard K. The Politics of Futility; The General Jewish Workers Bund of Poland, 1917-1943. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967. pp. 132-137
  8. ^ Samuel Schalkowsky (14 April 2014). The Clandestine History of the Kovno Jewish Ghetto Police: By Anonymous Members of the Kovno Jewish Ghetto Police. Indiana University Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-253-01297-5.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_May_8&oldid=955617605"