Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 3: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:57, 3 April 2020

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 April	4 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin Osman

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

This photographer is not notable. Not won any awards in reality . Also sources are not valid and there are not enough reliable sources on the web available about this guy. - Dinar Hossain oleg (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (simplified summary). Besides the The Star, Popular Photography, MTV News, and Upworthy articles about Osman's work as a community organizer already in the article, I also found this BuzzFeed article and this CBC article about his photographs of his grandmother and this Globe and Mail article that mentions him. It seems Osman is more notable for his work as a community organizer than as a photographer, but this is irrelevant. He passes GNG. userdude 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed and Upworthy aren't reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. Articles that mention him don't help to establish his notability if they aren't about him, so the Globe and Mail article isn't helping either. "MTV News" is a blog, not a notability-supporting media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he accomplishes something more noteworthy as a photographer. The sourcing here just isn't enough to get him over WP:GNG yet: I already explained above why Buzzfeed, Upworthy, the Globe and Mail and MTV News aren't helping; Flipboard is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person rather than being written about in the third; the Popular Photography cite is just a short piece that quotes his own thoughts on what he's trying to do with his work rather than verifying that he's accomplished anything noteworthy with it yet; Phaidon is a corporate blog, not a media outlet, so it already isn't a notability-supporting source even before you consider that it's also a dead link whose former content is unverifiable; and the Yahoo Finance citation is a corporate press release rather than journalism.
So in terms of footnotes that actually count for something, all we really have here is the Toronto Star and the CBC — but the CBC citation is from the CBC's local news bureau in Toronto, not from the national news division, so the fact that it's from the CBC is not an automatic "nationalized coverage" mic drop all by itself. People do not automatically pass GNG, as an exemption from having to pass the defined notability standards for their occupation, just because they can show two hits of human interest coverage in their hometown local media: he still needs wider coverage beyond just a couple of hits in Toronto's local media, and/or a more "inherently" notable accomplishment, before he actually clears the bar. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep everyone who gets to two": it also assesses the sources for their reliability and type and depth and range and context, not just their number. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep G Varier

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

Non-notable politician who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above users , fails WP:NPOL. He has not won any elections. Cedix (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians and WP:GNG.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -secretary of a regional political organization; WP:NOTINHERITED. I was secretary of the Capital District chapter of Citizen Action, but I am not notable for that reason. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL and WP:GNG fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunsin Oyekan

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article are not notable. A Google search of him only brings up promotional links and press releases about his music. None of the songs he's released have been discussed in released in reliable sources. His performances with notable acts or at a notable gospel music concert are not valid reasons for stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Falls short of both WP:GNG & WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 06:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Silverman

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

Yet another recreation a few months later of an article that was deemed a 'REDIRECT' per deletion discussion. No significant coverage about Silverman, only in the context of her relationship with Wachtler. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Silverman was a top Republican bundler, one of the early ambassadors appointed because of their fund-raising efforts, was a victim in one of the largest scandals in the US involving the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, and later was national spokesperson for the National Center for Victims of Crime talking about her experiences.Patapsco913 (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well sourced article about a notable politician/fundraiser. Could use some trimming. Lightburst (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is not true the article is dedicated to relationship to Wachtler. It covers her fundraising and embassadorial nomination by Bush. Quite a notable person. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patapsco913: passes WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 18:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:THREE are already cited in the article: [1] [2] [3]. Significant role in a significant event takes it out of WP:BLP1E, and I agree that there is also notability from the ambassadorial nomination and her philanthropy. This might be a WP:SNOW candidate. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Previous Afd was not a perfect close since besides for keep, some supported merge/redirect when all that happened was redirect. StonyBrook (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milton H. Biow

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

No news coverage available for Milton Biow. Except for the NYT obituary, all that is available is passing mentions. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination of behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 21:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This book, published by Routledge, has significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see 7 sources. Even if these are not in-depth, per WP:BASIC I think these sources combine to make the case for a person who is notable for what he did, which is the basic definition of notability, per the lead of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Debresser (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bridger: passes WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 18:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets BASIC. Time magazine 1956 (behind a paywall). The NYT published his obituary with byline. His autobiography was published by Doubleday Books and reviewed by the New York Times [4]. Among the many, many advertising campaigns he's known for, he was the guy who got I Love Lucy on the air by securing a sponsorship from cigarette company Phillip Morris. If you want to put a face to it, here is a neat photogaph from Getty Images of Biow, Lucille Ball, and Art Buchwald outside of Maxim's in Paris, 1955. This is probably a WP:SNOW candidate. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV - Times obit and several other great sources. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Kremer

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

Completing nomination for 217.150.87.242: No news coverage for Maurice Kremer. Only brief passing mentions of him. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editor nominated a Maurice Kremer for deletion who died in 1907 while his rationale refers to a different Maurice Kremer who has an award in his name and was born in 1907. {https://nebraskalegislature.gov/education/kremer.php} I wonder how much investigation he did? Kremer was one of the early Jewish government servants in Los Angeles, founding member of Wilshire Boulevard Temple, and along with several other Eastern European immigrants, funded the development of LA's first streetcar system and the power and water networks. Patapsco913 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see 8 sources. Even if these are not in-depth, per WP:BASIC I think these sources combine to make the case for a person who is notable for what he did, which is the basic definition of notability, per the lead of Wikipedia:Notability (people). I mean, he was Treasurer of Los Angelos, that sounds notable to me. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Debresser: passes WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 18:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A tough 19th century figure to research, but I'm rather proud of my colleagues, having followed this article for a few months, and seeing multiple editors bring forward sources about this topic. The WP:THREE are [5] [6] [7], and I'd also add [8] [9] (pp. 16–19 and 21) and [10] (though it's short). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the pioneers of Los Angeles and of the Los Angeles Jewish Community, certainly meets guidelines for notability. Nominator does a google search for a Maurice Kremer who was a Senator from Nebraska and uses the results to try to delete this article, when the two people are not one and the same. This should be snow closed as a disruptive nomination.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV, above discussion. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that there are insufficient sources that meet all of reliable, independent (particularly), secondary and significant coverage about the company itself. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kano (company)

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

I've speeded this article twice in the past as G11 and G5, but the new version was created by a good-faith editor. Anyhow: referenciness is provided in the form of a handful of news stories that are based on press releases. It is not the spam it once was, but I do suspect it's a solicited contribution abusing the good faith of a decent editor outside what seem to be his normal areas of interest, I don't think it establishes WP:GNG and it certainly fails WP:CORP. Guy (help!) 17:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has garnered feature-level coverage in an array of reliable sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Jweiss11, can you provide links to references that meet the criteria for establishing notability please? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - HighKing, I think the five sources already referenced in the article go along away toward establishing notability. Some quick searches turn up more: [11], [12], [13] Jweiss11 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article seem to press releases and the ones provided in the AfD are about product releases and other trivial topics that fail WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 17:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find a single source meets the criteria for establishing the notability *of the company*. The references are based on company announcements and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This from USA Today, this from CNBC and this from The Times are simply generic company-profile PR pieces. There is no Independent Content whatsoever, all of the information in the article concerning this company is provided by company executives (quotations/interviews) or the company themselves (number of units shipped, funding amounts raised, number of apps, etc). Fails WP:ORGIND
- This from The Telegraph and this from Tech Crunch are entirely based on company announcements - one talks about the launch one of the company's products and the other talks about their announcement of upcoming layoffs. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from VentureBeat is one of many articles in different publications all based on the joint announcement and dated from June 19/20 2019. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from The Guardian and this from The Telegraph barely mentions the company but primarily information on the product which isn't the subject of this article, therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND

While lots of articles mentioning Kano can be found, they invariably are based entirely on information provided by the company or are reviews of one of their products. Topic fails GNG/NNCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify both articles. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone SE (2020)

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

Articles on unreleased/unannounced products which only have rumors as their sources. I am also nominating

IPhone 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IPhone SE (second generation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a redirect) in this nomination. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I apparently missed a number of related redirects in my initial nomination, these should also be deleted if iPhone SE (2020) is deleted:
- IPhone 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- IPhone SE2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- IPhone 9 Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- IPhone SE 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thank you. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - far TOOSOON. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and not the place for product rumors (see section 5 of WP:CRYSTAL). -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please keep the page up for another two weeks. Apple is going to announce this product pretty soon, so it'd be useless to delete this page only to resurrect it when Apple announces it. Please reply. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 18:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's two weeks or two months is irrelevant. My answer here is still the same: There is nothing you can do to satisfy WP:CRYSTALBALL short of Apple announcing and releasing the product and secondary sources becoming available to support an article. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Go ahead and delete the article. I have a copy of it saved in my userspace. When the time is ripe, I'll put it out. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. major products like this which are well along in production are normally discussed in advance, just like unreleased films that have entered principal photography . It should be possible to find many other references. The main question is the exact name that the product will have when it is released, but thearticle can be moved if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all When it's announced, create it. Don't until then. We're not MacRumors. No prejudice to a switch to keep when it hits the (likely for good reason for now) virtual streets. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated delete all for all the further random 'guess' redirects found by Locke; don't create redirects based on what you might think the product is called. Nate • (chatter) 04:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON WP:CRYSTAL Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Locke Cole: Just letting you know that all of the redirects will be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G8 when the article iPhone SE (2020) is deleted (as redirects pointing to a non-existent page) so there is not really a point to nominating them here. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. =) I know from prior AFD's they can be overlooked sometimes. And given the number of inbound redirects, it kind of drives the point of WP:CRYSTALBALL being violated. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's no longer just the rumor sites, but , for example, Forbes: spence, Ewan (April 3, 2020). "Apple Loop: New iPhone SE Exposed, Stunning iPhone 12 Leaks, Apple Swiftly Shuts Down Android App". Forbes., CNET: Orellana, Vanessa Hand (April 7, 2020). "iPhone 12 'supercycle' could make 2020 a big year for Apple". cnet. .Does this suffice, Locke Cole , KAP03 , Mrschimpf ? DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @DGG: I would say that until the iPhone SE (2020) or whatever it is called is launched any information regarding it would still be rumors. Also, the articles you listed still are based on rumors meaning the articles should still be deleted. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

when responsible journalists for major national publications report them, then we can also. I understand the general reason for not making articles too early, and a month ago I would have agreed that too little definite information has been published. (and I'm a little curious about will be published tomorrow or the next day). Waiting for the official announcement is following the timeline of the company PR people; we should rather follow reputable journalists. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify iPhone SE (2020) as the device is likely to be imminently released. I can foresee the existing content and sources to remain in some form in a future article about the device; supply-chain issues surrounding it and its delayed release are relevant, encyclopedic information that would still merit mention after the device has been released. Delete iPhone 12 as the product is in all likelihood not going to be released anytime soon; most rumors point to it as a product to be released in a few months, and more info on the device is bound to be published to the extent that existing sources are not likely to be useful in a future article. feminist (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second draftifying. Verizon already accidentally revealed it’s coming out this year in their upgrade plan. ⌚️ (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with draftifying. I third it. Draftifying it is the best way to go, since this phone is going to be released soon. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 21:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify both. Unless they're actually released, they don't warrant an article. At the same time, let's not pour water on the creator's efforts by deleting them. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in School Innovation

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

Unsourced since 2008, tagged for notability since 2018. I managed to find one conference paper about the organisation dating from 1998, but that was by its cofounder. It shows up in funding databases and in social media but no independent third party coverage therefore not notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was also unable to find any coverage beyond what is mentioned in the nom. It is mentioned a few times here and there, but there is no significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep Tim Richmond, delete Brandon Lynn and Eddie Fatscher. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Richmond (racing driver, born 1998)

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

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG. Two of the four sources are dead links that probably led to series press releases and the other two sources are routine directory-style entries that do not establish notability. Best, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(add-on: also nominating Brandon Lynn and Eddie Fatscher for being non-notable motorsport drivers whose articles are completely sourced by press releases and the like.) Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three. All articles have sources that are press releases, thus don't meet the GNG. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brandon Lynn and Eddie Fatscher, Keep OR Draft Tim Richmond. After reading through all three articles, I agree they are short in length and there's not a lot of articles besides press releases out there about all three drivers at the moment.
Brandon Lynn: His article should also be deleted because I never finished the "personal life" section when I first wrote the article a few months ago, so it looks incomplete and lacking enough info. Plus, he doesn't have a ride so far this year.
Eddie Fatscher: This article looks a little more complete than Lynn's, but again, the sources are all press releases copied and pasted into all these different racing websites (not new, original articles that explain their background and successes). Fatscher also did not race in ARCA or another series in 2019.
Tim Richmond: On the other hand, unlike Lynn and Fatscher, Richmond is currently a full-time competitor in the series. Luckily, one of the dead links was web archived before the ARCA website remodel (when the article was lost), and it was actually not a press release. Richmond also had a road racing career before coming to ARCA, and that's not in his article right now, so maybe we draft it and then add it back when it looks more complete? Do you guys think that one archived article is enough to keep it or draft it? Regardless of what we do, we'd need to get more sources that aren't from the ARCA website about him. I think Willsome, you told me in the past that it's not the best thing if all the sources about a driver come from the ARCA site only. Let me know your thoughts.

Cavanaughs (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Cavanaughs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the pages that are the subjects of this AfD. Forgot to include this... Here's the Tim Richmond archived article on the ARCA site that is one of the sources in his article: https://web.archive.org/web/20191223172852/https://www.arcaracing.com/articles/2013226-solid-rookie-season-by-tim-richmond-results-in-tenth-place-in-owners-standings-for-wayne-peterson Cavanaughs (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]

Delete Lynn and Fatscher for sure. I want to lean weak keep on Richmond because it seems as if he's established himself as a full-timer (or at least he would be right now if not for the situation), although I am concerned about a lack of outside sources from the ARCA website. If stuff can be found, it might be worth holding onto, but we'll see. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Axford

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

I believe Axford fails GNG by herself. The references used are all interviews and I cannot find in-depth information on her. Her husband may also fail as well. The criteria under WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple notable and significant roles and I believe she fails this as well. I suggest either deletion or redirect to Hot Date. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she appears on Adam Ruins Everything, has a reasonably significant podcast, and wrote a reasonably well received book - along with her involvement with Hot Date. If it weren’t for the Adam Ruins Everything appearances and her podcast I would have !voted to delete however. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely a notable person, multiple significant roles include Hot Date and Adam Ruins Everything. I seemed to find a fair few sources, so I don’t know where you were looking? Aussiespinnersfanpage (talk)
Keep: In my opinion, both WP:ENT and WP:GNG are passed. Here are a few sources:

→https://ew.com/tv/2017/09/15/hot-date-will-arnett-first-look/

→https://chicago.suntimes.com/2017/8/7/18319378/chicago-clicked-for-couple-turning-hot-date-into-a-tv-series

→https://deadline.com/2019/08/hot-date-season-2-premiere-date-for-pop-tvs-sketch-comedy-series-1202705506/

Dflaw4 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Meadows

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

Non notable actor with only IMDb as a source. No evidence of potential for improvement Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Ladonna Compson appears to be a minor character, having only appeared in 12 episodes over six years, according to IMDb. Tina Kwee appears to be her most notable role. The character is listed as a main character in Detentionaire#Main_characters, but from her IMDb page it looks like she was only in two of the show's four seasons. Not enough to meet NACTOR. userdude 20:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMDb is questionable in general, but for animated series in particular it is often downright unreliable. @User:UserDude: If you check the later episodes you're referring to, you'll see that almost no voice actors at all are credited for them – sadly a very common situation for cartoons on that site. In fact, Tina is not only a major character in all four seasons, but actually grows in prominence throughout the series, up to and including the finale. Modernponderer (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Still, I'm not convinced she meets WP:NACTOR#1. userdude 07:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not at all a notable actress. It is time we stopped having Wikipedia be an IMDB mirror. This is one of probably at least 10 current nominations of an article that has as its only source IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per John Pack Lambert. non-notable issues and unsourced subject. I have no problem removing IMDb as an unreliable reference. The use in the "External links" section, as a back-door reference, does not make the site any less unreliable nor the article any more sourced, since a source must be reliable. It might have worked at one point but not recently that I know of. I don't have a problem with the use of IMDb (especially comtemt from the WGA), just not the inundation of every related article, regardless if the site offers a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article, especially when "user-submitted" content. Otr500 (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Coverage Found! twerk000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject has done a substantial amount of voice work—enough to meet WP:NACTOR, in my opinion—but no sources have been identified. Perhaps a relist and more time will result in sources being found, because WP:GNG is certainly not passed at the moment. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bivouac (basketball)

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

Lack of significant coverage from mutlitple independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Inheritance is WP:NOTINHERITED from Big3 league. WP:PROD was contested (without a stated reason). —Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with nomination. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Conway

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

Non notable child actor with no evidence of independent secondary sources. Currently a mirror of IMDB, it’s only source Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Forest Rangers, her first and most significant series. Without prejudice to recreating if further sources found, especially offline. Dl2000 (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just cannot see she has did more work than as a child actor and is too minor for an article. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject had significant roles in a few TV productions, and though it's difficult to gauge the notability and popularity of those shows, there is probably enough to scrape through under WP:NACTOR. At newspapers.com, there are many newspaper clippings which provide coverage that exceeds mere mentions. Here are a couple of sources; the second is more in-depth than the first: here and here. I think that, with some work, the article could meet, or get close to meeting, WP:GNG. I'd welcome any feedback from other voters, including Dl2000, Chris.sherlock and John Pack Lambert. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that an advert? Just curious.... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what the first one is, to be honest, Chris.sherlock. I wasn't to access it until I applied at WP:RX, and I chose it because it seemed a reasonable-sized chunk of writing. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find stronger sources. I'll grant that there are roles here that have the potential to pass WP:NACTOR if they were sourced properly, but the mere having of roles is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have reliable sources. However, if we assume that the two clips listed above are the best sources Dflaw4 could find, then the ability to find two short blurbs in the TV listings (which, depending on the publication, did routinely used to run random infoboxes like that which gave a brief blurb's worth of information about a cast member in a show that was airing that day) just isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christiani & Nielsen

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

Article about a company, written more like a PR profile in a business directory than an encyclopedia article and not referenced to any evidence of reliable source coverage in real media to establish that it would pass WP:CORP: until I stripped them as WP:ELNO violations, the only "references" present here at all were offsite links, sitting directly out in body text instead of footnoting anything, to parts of the company's own self-published website about itself. As always, however, the notability test that a company has to pass to get a Wikipedia article is not just that its own website technically verifies that the company exists -- a company has to be the subject of significant and non-trivial journalistic coverage in real media, in order to establish that its activity and accomplishments have been deemed worthy of attention by sources independent of its own public relations department. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company is a publicly traded company with stock ticker CNT. There are plenty of news coverage from Google news search [14]. Company has very long history and constructed many landmarks. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lerdsuwa. Clearly notable, covered by third-party sources such as the Danish–Thai Chamber of Commerce[15] and ScandAsia[16]. The article's poor shape was due to recent copyvio/COI editing, which I have reverted. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems perfectly OK to me. One should always ask "can this be saved" before AFD'ing, and in this case the answer seems to be "obviously yes". Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salomon Solano

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

Fails WP:GNG, couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having only played professionally for minor league NFL Europe (cannot find evidence that he played in a game for the Arena Football League in 2010) and might have played in the Indoor Football League and X-League. Played on the Mexico National Football 2011 World Cup Team, but I'm not sure there is an SNG for that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding much coverage (here, here, here), but I can't accesss coverage in Mexican sources. This profile (probably not independent) asserts that Solano "is a superstar". Cbl62 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Spanish Wikipedia article page for him (es:Salomón Solano), but it's mostly a translation of this en.wiki page and hasn't been edited by a human editor in the last five years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking through the sources above/in the profile, he fails WP:GNG. The Daily Star article is the best since he gets a photo but he's the last story in the NFL roundup and it's mostly a telephone interview. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Nasiruddin Ashrafi Na'imi

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

Fails WP:GNG. A three-sentence orphan article with no sources. No substantive edits since its creation in 2015, by an editor who only ever made 2 edits. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's well known for those who are interested - I will bring few refs to article. Mea culpa - misread.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced article. It is time we rid Wikipedia of such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After 3 weeks of discussions, it's still unclear where the community wants to go with this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campus placement

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

Completely unreferenced article about a topic, written much more like a WP:HOWTO guide than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not WikiHow, so the key to getting a topic like this in the door is not just to write a step-by-step guide to the process that's completely unsupported by any sources — what would be needed is an article that contextualized it with properly sourced independent analysis about it. For one thing, not all "campus placement" follows exactly the same process across the board: there can be regional variances in different locations, the process can change depending on the nature and needs of different employers and industries, and on and so forth, which is an example of the kind of thing that a properly written article would need to note and source. Furthermore, this has been flagged for both referencing and basic notability issues since 2010, without ever having seen any significant improvement on either front. I am, of course, willing to consider withdrawing this if somebody can actually repair the article with real sources and an encyclopedic tone, but after a decade in this state it's time to call the question. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't even work out what the purpose of this article is: it clearly fails to meet standards in its current form, and I can't see how it could be re-edited into anything that might pass muster. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify. The subject definitely seems to be notable. There is this book on the subject, and this book has a substantial section on it, as does this book, and there are many scholarly papers on the subject [17][18]. So I think that WP:STUBIFY very much applies here as after all the HOWTO stuff is removed there won't be much left. SpinningSpark 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 01:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This needs to be drastically rewritten. No doubt. At the same time, the topic is absolutely notable. I agree with the above user's comment completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stubbified the page. My informal impression is that "campus placement" is a more common term in India while "campus recruitment" is more so in the United States. Either way, it seems a worthwhile topic to cover — "how do college students get jobs" is obviously of social significance — although most of the sources turned up in a casual search are marketing glurge. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's hard to see how this can be an actual article, and not merely a stub. And if it's a stub, then it's effectively a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. erc ^{talk/contribs} 23:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Graduate recruitment, with which it is now redundant after the stubbification. That article, in turn, needs additional sources, but some of those have turned up (e.g., just to close my browser tabs, [19][20][21]). XOR'easter (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, why don't we kill both articles then merge it all into Recruitment? I mean, I guess since we're involving other articles, it's technically outside the scope of AfD, but what's special about college recruitment? I agree that the concept "how people (college students) get jobs" is notable, but is it notable separate and apart from recruiting people in general? Instead of having a random job fair or random ads, you place those fairs/ads within a university. That's not some unique, novel concept that needs its own wiki page. erc ^{talk/contribs} 15:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no strong feelings about that one way or the other, but I suspect that there are enough details peculiar to recruitment at colleges specifically that a separate page is not a bad idea. For example, allowing the military to recruit on campus may be more controversial than their having recruiting offices downtown. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zymo Research

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

no evidence of notability. The first three references are PR, the 4th is from the company itself. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note version of article nominated for deletion --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I added a Washington Post article that included two paragraphs on Zymo for recent coronavirus-related news. I might suggest seeing whether any related coverage comes out regarding that sort of thing, though I would certainly say delete in 6-12 months if nothing arrives. I also searched through a number of local newspapers in Orange County, but almost nothing came up. Jlevi (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you added was (17 March 2020). "DIY nasal swabs, drive-thrus and labs in overdrive: Americans are desperate for more coronavirus testing". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 March 2020. This would appear to be a general article , with Zymo included as one of the many companies trying to develop at-home COVID testing. How much of the full article is about them? Iwould assume that if this becomes practical, it wil for other firms also, and the non-PR coverage will mention all of them. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are two short paragraphs (in a fairly long article) about Zymo specifically. Jlevi (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - in my opinion, there's very little in the Washington Post reference. The two short paragraphs amounts to 4 sentences. The first sentence talks about how Zymo, along with the other companies in this article, has developed a home testing kit. The second sentence describes the contents of the kit. The next paragraph, sentence three, is a statement from Marc Van Eden, VP of Business Development at Zymo, where he says that Zymo passes the samples to a lab for processing. The final sentence is Marc saying that the lab can process the samples in 24 hours but they're waiting for FDA approval.

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project 2049 Institute

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

It's borderline, but I don't think it passes WP:NOTABILITY. Mainly primary sources. Has sat in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unsure about this one. Its reports turn up here and there in the footnotes of books. It gets a bit of coverage in the Taiwanese press but most news references seem to be about its CEO, along with a brief name check for the think tank itself. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, most of the references are passing mentions and primary sources. Koridas (Speak) 18:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transpersonal sociology

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

Insufficient notability Hawol (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article and I now see that I was a bit too optimistic about its notability. This is a tiny field of Transpersonal Studies that has shown little or no development since its beginning. The field has produced a very small amount of literature, and there is hardly any new literature. The article is based mainly on primary references, only a few of the references are secondary. I did a thorough literature search and was not able to establish any more references for this article than the few references given. I propose that the article be deleted--Hawol (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-10 ✍️ create

Keep: while the nominator/creator may well be right that the field has had little impact, that's an intrinsically difficult standard to judge, which is why whenever possible we prefer to determine notability on the basis of whether significant coverage in reliable sources exists. In this case it seems to me that such coverage does exist in the form of the 2013 special issue of the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies and the earlier Greenwood article (as well as probably the Boucouvalas article, though I'm not able to access that). As I mentioned at the article talk page, distinguishing between primary and secondary sources in articles about academic fields and disciplines is difficult and sometimes counterproductive – we're bound to cite theorists who played a pivotal role in the development of an idea, and that isn't at all the same thing as citing a band's website or a company's press releases. If there isn't a consensus to keep this it should be merged into Transpersonal#Transpersonal studies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator is happy to keep and sources have been suggested and added. Canley (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Griffith Society

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

This article appears to fail the WP:DEL7 notability check. I was unable to find any reliable sources mentioning this group, and the current links are either primary or non-reliable. Moreover, the primary tag has been on the article since 2008, which does not in itself prove anything, but does suggest that this is not a new problem. Jlevi (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. I don't know if this is a proper place for me to comment. If not, I would be glad of advice of a proper place.

I don't have a good grasp of Wikipedia policy on such matters. I would be glad to be advised on it.

I don't recall exactly, but for a decade or two I have attended annual meetings of the Samuel Griffith Society. There are perhaps 100 members present at each meeting. The meetings are held in the capital cities of the states of Australia, and in Canberra, the national capital, in rotation. They meetings last two days, with papers presented during the days, perhaps 45 minutes each, including discussion. The papers are by judges and scholars who are interested in the Australian Constitution. I think the papers are substantial and notable. Each year, the papers are published in a volume of the Society's proceedings. Each member of the Society receives a hard copy of each volume. Some thirty volumes have been published.

I attended a special general meeting of the Society in Melbourne on 12 March 2020.

To me, it would seem absurd to delete from Wikipedia the article on the Samuel Griffith Society. I am at this moment unable to provide secondary sources on the topic, but that may just mean that I don't read them if they exist. I will try to follow this up.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, Jlevi, the Samuel Griffith Society has been referred to regularly in Australian media. See eg: The Canberra Times from December 2019, referring to its receipt of tax deductible gift recipient status (https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6546429/politically-favoured-think-tank-gets-tax-deductible-status-and-vegan-group-loses-it/), The Australian from February 2020 referring to the Society in the context of debate about judicial appointments in Australia (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/judging-the-high-courts-justices/news-story/6c819b096c60180d761d0ca9ab38b2eb), and The Monthly referring to a speech given by former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott at a recent Samuel Griffith Society conference (https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/dominic-kelly/2016/17/2016/1471402108/privilege-and-its-discontents). Perhaps the article may need to be updated, but there does not appear to be any lack of relevant secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.37.133 (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm paywalled on a few of those sources, so it makes it hard for me to properly evaluate their implications for notability for the organization (WP:ORGCRITE), but this makes me much more confident that there is sufficient material to establish notability. Though I cannot do so at this moment, it should be much easier to make an argument to retain this article, since the sources just need to exist (WP:NEXIST). No worries if this is too much work for you, but it would be very useful if you could find the two best sources possible to verify claims of notability. Thank you so much for adding these statements! Jlevi (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In short, I could not find any significant IRS about the subject. However, there are many mentions of the subject in the context of academia, politics, and social policy, etc. It would be possible to build an article, possibly better than a start-class, but it would require significant work and such perhaps could be argued to border on SYNTH or OR. If someone can find a couple of good IRS about the subject I could be convinced to change my !vote to keep. Aoziwe (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, this has been brought to my attention and I am happy to do some work adding additional content and sources to the existing article. As has been established by the previous discussion, there are numerous secondary sources that refer to the Society and its ongoing activities, establishing its notability in Australia as an organisation led by both a former High Court Justice and a Vice President of the Commonwealth Executive Council. I am a new user, so I will need some assistance with some of the terms referred to by Aoziwe (WP:IRS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) - I couldn't find any references to these terms in either the AfD or general Wikipedia glossaries. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks XavierBoffa (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XavierBoffa I have linked the abbreviations above so that you can follow the links. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion suggests that the article is in the process of being expanded or improved, so more time is needed for this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made some initial edits, attempting to incorporate the above discussion and adopting the model of similar pages such as H. R. Nicholls Society. I will make further changes based on any feedback/guidance. XavierBoffa (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as nominator) Based on suggested sources and changes made to the article already. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, I was unaware the player's team had been top-tier during the player's career before relegation. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panuwat Meenapa

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

Has only played in Thai League 2, which is not listed at WP:FPL and is a second-tier league. Appears to fail WP:NFOOTY. Hog Farm (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete is per nomination. No notability. --John B123 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 23 appearances in the Thai League 1, which is a WP:FPL, meaning he meets WP:NFOOTY. Navy were relegated in 2018 and are, as of 2020, in the Thai League 2, but spent 2015–2018 in League 1. Article needs cleaned up, not deleted. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keskkonnakaitse. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and ongoing career.See no reason to delete.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- John B123 - Would you reconsider your !vote to delete? I was mistaken in my nomination, as the team was a fully professional league at the time the player played for them, so WP:NFOOTY is passed by this figure. I can't withdraw the nomination with an outstanding !vote to delete, but I don't like the idea of wasting editor time with a nomination I now realize was mistaken. Hog Farm (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hog Farm: no problem - withdrawn. --John B123 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Florence, South Carolina shooting

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

Most AfDs are about notability. This isn't. It's about WP:NOT. Although the event was widely covered at the time it happened, there is no indication of any long term impact or change occurring. This is news and nothing more. It's full of BLP violations and serves no purpose. Crazy dude killed cops. Sad, but it happens all the time. John from Idegon (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say coverage is limited to just around the time this event happened:

Based on coverage I'm seeing via Google and Google News searches, I'm inclined to keep. For the record, I created a stub for this page but don't consider myself a primary author. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - local coverage of the people associated with this doesn't do much to show any historic impact here. It made the wires when it happened, as it should. Let me ask you this: do you think this would ever be covered by history text books? And what changed because of it? Outside the obvious impact to family and friends, nothing. John from Idegon (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy the diversity of coverage nor the lasting effects requirements of WP:NEVENT. Mass shootings are an almost every day event in the United States, and there is no evidence shown that this shooting changes anything. Coverage is local and confined to the standard crime-trial-sentencing cycle. Unfortunate but not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage is ongoing. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Event is still ongoing, because there has yet to be a trial.TH1980 (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Road to Hell (Sunstorm album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Another in the series of articles by the editor creating articles related to Alessandro Del Vecchio, and another which fails notability. Has been redirected twice, but the creator has reverted the redirect without explanation or improvement, so this now has to be discussed at AfD. The sources from Blabbermouth are simply advance press announcements of the album's release, as is this article from Brave Words [22], but there don't appear to be any articles from reliable sources reviewing or discussing the album after its release. The Belgian Rock Report is a press release provided by the record company (it says so at the bottom). The Sonic Perspectives review is by a fan writing on a non-RS website that solicits CDs for review. Possibly the only thing that comes close to being an RS is Metal Temple but this looks like a worldwide community rather than professional journalists... and anyway, it's only one review, not the multiple sources required to pass notability. The other sources are blogs, Discogs, and the record company's website. I can't find any other reliable sources discussing the album in-depth. Richard3120 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agreed, no real RS, although the Blabbermouth was at least amusing... Caro7200 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, what does it mean for you to deepen an album by the band of Joe Lynn Turner, one of the most important voices in the history of rock / metal? Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 9:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  - This has been explained to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kee of Hearts (album), but you still don't seem to get it. I know very well who Joe Lynn Turner is, and the famous bands he has been in throughout his career. But that does not mean everything he is involved in is automatically notable, as stated in WP:INHERITED. Not even every record by the Beatles is notable. Every record has to be notable on its own terms, being reviewed or discussed in depth in reliable sources per WP:NALBUM, to qualify for its own Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have further updated the article with reliable sources such as Blabbermouth, BraveWords and Fireworks (Rocktopia).

In case there are any fixes to do, I trust in your help. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the sources from Blabbermouth and Brave Words are still nothing more than announcements of forthcoming releases, they don't demonstrate notability. They are also clearly press releases provided by the record company, not by journalists of those publications, because they use exactly the same wording in each article. So they aren't independent. Rocktopia might be the only source so far in the whole article that would pass as an RS – certainly none of the others do. Richard3120 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Kekkofranco~enwiki. Sources recently added by the creator are reliable enough, hence making the article good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not interested in looking for an argument in this AfD. So, I won't reply. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been a good idea to actually check the reliability of the sources before you made your vote, because then you would have seen that at best only one of the four reviews in the table come from reliable sources, and the sources that are reliable, such as Brave Words and Blabbermouth, are simply press announcements by the record label of forthcoming releases, they don't show that the album is notable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Sunstorm (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: "Keep" based on what? Can you show me where the reliable, independent in-depth sources are in this article? Richard3120 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: In addition to Rocktopia, Metal Heads Forever and Musictap are independent and reliable sources. In fact there are also in other articles dedicated to other albums. My work on this during this "quarantine" continues and I will provide you with other reliable sources or that, however, this relevant record. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kekkofranco~enwiki: It may be your opinion that these are reliable sources, but we've had discussions on these and similar hard rock websites in the past, and the consensus has been that these are just blogs written by fans, not professional journalists. If they are in other articles they should be deleted from those articles as well, not used as a reason to add them to this one. Richard3120 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: They are not opinions and I could say the same of what you write. Rocktopia is the site of the Fireworks magazine; Metal Heads Forever is an important music magazine in this sector, both on paper and on the web. Same thing goes for MusicTap. However I believe that if important sites / magazines like Brave Words and Blabbermouth find it important to publish info on such an album there will be a reason. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120:, note I said "Keep or redirect", meaning that if it can not be kept, it can be redirected with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677:, well, yes, I know that can be done, but you still haven't given any reason for saying "keep" in the first place. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120:, I am open to either or. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here for years, and still you don't know how AfD works??? You're supposed to give the reasoning behind your vote, not say whether it bothers you or not. Richard3120 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still not convinced that the sources are independent and authoritative? Rocktopia (Fireworks), Metal Heads Forever and also Metal Temple are present in many other important album articles on this wikipedia. In addition, I also found important feedback for The Rocktologist magazine. Sonic Perspectives also has a certain authority, otherwise they would not make interviews with important artists such as Eric Peterson of Testament. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact they are present in other articles is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and in no way proves they are notable sources. Even school fanzines can (and do) have interviews with famous rock stars, so that means zero, really, in terms of how authoritative they are. Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Jax 0677: please give us a good explanation on why you voted to keep/redirect this article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep the "history in tact". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Llewelyn Webb

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

Academic with a string of publications, but no substance to the article and nothing to say why he is notable - which he might be, but I am not familiar enough with social psychology to say. Rathfelder (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The article needs serious cleanup, but he has three publications with over 1000 citations each, which I think is a _clear_ pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because it's much more difficult than it should be to find sourcing for more than just the citation numbers. But I think the article is in better shape now. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "His research has shown that making backup plans can reduce the likelihood of risky behavior." -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that an argument? A lot of worthwhile research consists of demonstrating the obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's the Golgafrinchan solution. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Tell Mama (novel)

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

Second proposed deletion, now through AFD. The article still fails WP:NB. All the references were previously primary sources/self-published. Now the page creator has updated the article with three secondary sources, one from Bulgarian National Radio website and two from HUGE.BG. The latter of which likely fails WP:RS. I'll remind again that this same page was created on Bulgarian Wikipedia (see bg:Не казвай на мама) and was speedy deleted for similar reasons (sources / advertisting). I do not believe the article can be improved to meet WP:NB. I grieve in stereo (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft delete as it has been dePRODded previously
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Bulgarian National Radio piece is substantial coverage in what I assume is a reliable source, but that's only one source. The HUGE.bg piece is an interview and the article cites nothing else that establishes notability. Sandstein 21:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 1 clear RS and no other evidence of notability. Oddly enough, the promotional stunt of re-creating the painting may be more notable than the book it was promoting. Either way, this fails on WP:SIGCOV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above arguments. The book simply doesn't appear to be really notable. The Bulgarian National Radio piece is nice and all, but that's not enough to build a whole page on, I think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonesteel (band)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to support an article. The strongest notability claim here is that they were named to a minor music trade magazine's listicle of 100 "hot unsigned bands" -- but this is not a notability-clinching "award" in and of itself, and even the listicle doesn't contain any information about the band beyond a simple namecheck of their existence. And as for sourcing, the 21 footnotes here also include eight entries in non-notable and unreliable blogs, four YouTube videos, five directory entries that verify the existence of songs without containing any independently-written critical content about the songs, and one completely tangential magazine article that serves to support a very general statement about human mental health without even mentioning this band at all in conjunction with it. Which means that 19 of the 21 sources here are doing nothing at all in terms of establishing that the band is notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- and of the two that are from real, reliable source media, one is a "local man does stuff" human interest piece in the local newspaper of the guitarist's own hometown and the other is a Q&A interview in which the band is speaking about themselves in the first person on a smalltown local radio station, which doesn't add up to enough coverage to get them over WP:GNG if it's the best you can do. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist: they have to have a notability claim that passes NMUSIC, and they have to have real reliable source coverage in real media to support an article, but nothing here meets either of those conditions yet. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough RS yet. Caro7200 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded this article a few days ago for not being notable due to not having significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search turned up no reliable sources. This concern is still valid as the current sources are mostly links to songs (not independent and not reliable) and to unreliable blogs. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They don't yet meet GNG or NBAND. JSFarman (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaa Kool Hain Hum (film series)

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

The article is a copy of the other three articles, nothing new. There is no significant coverage or important to the series as well. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Delete or Redirect to the first movie. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not an article about a film, it is an article that summarises key points about three films in a franchise. Thus, it is expected that it would contain content found in the individual articles and thus, WP:NFILM may not be relevant here. Note also how List of Star Trek films and television series addresses the franchise, with summaries of content found in other articles. Not every article subject requires independent notability. For instance, would we need to establish a TV series' list of episodes as independently notable in order to branch off a list article? Of course not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek films and television series article has numerous WP:RS, where this has hardly any which discusses it in a series way. How about the notability WP:NRV? - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep copying within Wikioedia is permitted and the films are notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: I think the nominator is trying to say its a content fork, with the "series" of films not passing the notability criteria, imv. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But in the reviews of the films following the first one aren't the reviews making comparisons and similarities with the earlier films so that effectively the films are being subject to coverage as a series, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is bound to happen because of the same film titles. It is "passing mention" to the series, not significant coverage. The most important thing here is, they are not even sequels. They are just random films containing similar star cast, and titles. The stories are differet, and even the characters portrayed by actors are different. Like Cyphoidbomb observed above; all other franchises/film-TV series have something in common. Not this film series. This film series is not mentioned anywhere out of press releases. This article is a content fork, and all the information is already covered in individual film articles. In the lead (and/or somewhere else in the article) it can be clearly stated "X was followed by Y, and Z". "Y was preceded by X, and followed by Z", and so on. There is no connection between films, no story continued, so we dont need article from that angle/requirement either (like we can explain continuity in "episodes" or "seasons" articles). —usernamekiran (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly explained by usernamekiran. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per my own comments above. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film series typically have their own article on Wikipedia. No reason why this one should be different because it is less "important" than another series. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not actually a film series. This is very well explained by usernamekiran above. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stories being unrelated and the characters being different does not make it "not a film series" (see the Cornetto trilogy or the Revenge trilogy for example). The three films share the same producers, same stars, same themes, same titling scheme,... It's a film series. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy Evil Dude: Hi. Your rationale is very well explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cornetto trilogy, and other similar series have received significant coverage in reliable sources. This film series doesnt have significant coverage. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. This series fails general notability criteria. Like I said in my previous comments, there is no continuity, or any other reason to have a separate stand alone article. Everything can be explained in in the articles of individual films. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

from an interview with star Tusshar Kapoor: "It’s the third part of the Kya Kool Hai Hum trilogy, the first adult comedy franchise in India, and it’s an exciting film for me because it’s been projected as India’s first p-rn com". From an interview with 3rd film star Aftab Shivdasani: "The film is the third film in the franchise, and it’s got nothing to do with the story of the first and second film.". The films have been discussed as a trilogy by reputable, reliable outlets such as Mint, The Express Tribune and FirstPost. Coverage in India has been significant. Enough. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy Evil Dude: interviews, and press releases are not considered as significant coverage. Most of the, almost all of the coverage that I could find is about the individual movies with passing reference to the series. Again: verifiable existence is not notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you're splitting hairs and you know it. I've said what I have to say. That is all. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is correct that interviews and press releases don't confer notability. However, I'm not convinced that the series needs to have secondary coverage specifically about the fact that it is a series in order for there to be a page for the series. It would seem that the series has notability if each individual episode is notable enough for an article. And I disagree with the idea that there needs to be a common story for it to be a series; it is common for a series to have different plots throughout its episodes, with actors playing different roles in each episode. As an example, take the series American Horror Story; each season has a different plot and the actors play different characters. The stories don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. However, it is still clearly a series, as you can tell by the fact that the same people are involved and the titles imply a series. Here, you have three titles implying a series (How Cool We Are > How Super Cool We Are > How Cool We Are 3) and many of the same people working on the movies. It's clearly a series, each episode is notable, I don't see why we wouldn't allow a page for this. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, didn't know about the relegation (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pornthep Chankai

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

Appears to have only played in Thai League 2, which is not a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTY. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 40 appearances and a goal in the Thai League 1, which is a WP:FPL, meaning he meets WP:NFOOTY. Chainat Hornbill were relegated in 2019 and are, as of 2020, in the Thai League 2, but spent 2018–2019 in League 1. Article needs cleaned up, not deleted. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keskkonnakaitse. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Per creator's request, moving to Draft:Sam Nda-Isaiah. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Nda-Isaiah

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. References 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 all count as one source (Leadership newspaper) and are not independent of the subject. The Leadership source cannot count towards notability because the subject is the publishing director for the newspaper. The remaining sources cited in the article do not discuss the subject. The article contains lengthy quotes about statements the subject made. If you extract all the lengthy quotes and the subject's long list of mentors, all that's left is his position within the Leadership organization and his unsuccessful stint for the APC president position. These two pieces of information about the subject are not enough to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Versace1608). First I'll like to say Thanks Mann and secondly is that (Nnamdigoodluck) has already put some maintenance tags in it. This page i don't know if you're the reviewer of the page but it has being maintain in according to what was tag to it. This page sources does not matter if it came on the same (1-6) cite are from one source that he was chief editor in it.

So Thanks for your work. Much respect (F5pillar 14:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The formula is usually “in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the article’s subject” most of the reliable sources present in the article are not independent of the subject & like the nominator already said, that really does next to nothing to substantiate notability claims made in the article. @F5pillar, you understand this right?Celestina007 (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: the article's creator left this note on my talk page, requesting for the article to be moved to draftspace. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or draftify. As noted, more than half of the sources here come from the subject's own employer rather than an independent source, which means they aren't notability makers — and of the six sources left once we discount those, we can drop another four: two blurbs, a one-off glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else and a piece of his own bylined writing about another subject. That leaves us with just two references that are both independent of him and non-trivially about him, but that's not enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Divine

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

A non-notable gospel group that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources cited in the article are either unreliable or inaccessible. A Google search of the group doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 21:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DavidB

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article are either primary sources or promotional links to subject's music. None of his music releases have been discussed in reliable sources. According to the article, he was a part of the group that was nominated for Best Gospel Category at the 2009 MOBO Awards. However, this information is not true. The group isn't listed here or in the MOBO Awards 2009 article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of article does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources, hence invariably falls short of general notability guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society

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

Not enough coverage per Notability (Non-commercial Organizations) and possible COI. Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Allenjambalaya (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 of 4 sources in the article have tags suggesting dead links, but here is one of those sources, or a new source: "500 join heritage walk through antique houses in Cagayan, by Villamor Visaya, Jr., April 5, 2019, published by Philippine News Agency. And other sources turn up in my quick searching. If this is a local historical society, perhaps it could be covered in a row in a table of similar ones in a list-article. Hmm, that would be expanding coverage (it is already mentioned) at List of historical societies#Philippines societies. So a merger to there is a possibility, a good wp:ATD. --Doncram (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a few articles about the NGO: [23], [24] and [25]. I believe those, along with Doncram's link, are reliable enough to make the article close to passing WP:NGO. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Not enough independent coverage of the NGO (only two that are valid), the size of the organization and age (barely 2 years) dont help establish notability for this local NGO either. At least, for now.--RioHondo (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found some more articles on this small group:

Comment @Jbuigat: Hello! It took you a long time to reply to the discussion. You haven't fixed the reference links yet. I fixed some of them but I cannot foud them. And where are the articles you are mentioning? And since this is a small group, you should prove that there is enough coverage per Notability (Non-commercial Organizations) and declare that you, as the creator of the article, does not violate the COI. If you are having trouble answering this issues, please put a new section on the Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines and ask for help. I think some will gladly help you there. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed the dead links. My vote still stays. Aside from COI and not enough coverage per Notability (Non-commercial Organizations), I agree with the WP:TOOSOON.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - technically there are two reliable sources with in-depth reporting about this NGO, but it just seems so local. This area in the Northeast of Luzon, the Philippines is isolated, and likely to remain so. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwo Oladoye

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the sources cited in the article are independent of her. As a matter of fact, none of the subject's music has been discussed in reliable sources. All of the awards and nominations she is a recipient of are not notable. Her debut album has not been discussed in reliable sources. A Google search of her doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator one all points. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Ben-Ameh

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the sources cited in the article are independent of the subject. None of the subject's music has been discussed in reliable sources. The reality TV show she won is not notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with John Pack Lambert. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources, being the winner of a non-notable reality TV show is hardly a claim to fame, fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom, John Pack Lambert, and Bhalerao. Two dead links and two interviews do not advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Falls short of WP:MUSICBIO does not qualify also as per WP:GNG & worse, subject of article does not seem to even possess bare notability. Celestina007 (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ezekiel

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article reads like a CV and is simply a promotional piece. All of the awards the subject is a recipient of are not notable. The subject doesn't have a career to speak of. He is the founder of a non-notable furniture company that has not been discussed in reliable sources. Nothing in the article justifies the subject having a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Promotional article for a subject who does not have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources so I can’t see WP:GNG being satisfied here. Celestina007 (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Stone

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. He is the founder of a non-notable culinary school. The references cited in the article are either primary sources or not about the subject. The subject has not been discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable chef.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Flori4nKT A L K 14:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. However, sourcing should be improved, or we'll be right back here in another few months. BD2412 T 20:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuela Rei

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

Fails WP:ENT. Antila333 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There needs to be evidence that she's gotten enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. (I think she probably technically meets WP:NACTOR due to being a co-lead on Maggie & Bianca: Fashion Friends, and for being in the cast of TV series previous to that, but meeting WP:BASIC/WP:GNG is actually the metric that matters for WP:BLPs.) Right now, the article is entirely unsourced and is basically a WP:BLPPROD case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence she is a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NACTOR with her main role in Maggie & Bianca, and she has gotten coverage in Italian papers: ANSA, Note, la Repubblica. (There are also a lot of news articles to source her other roles like this that don't go in-depth as those.) Unfortunately the article was created without any sourcing and poor translations. TheFallenPower (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ENT is definitely made out, in my opinion. Aside from her role in Maggie & Bianca: Fashion Friends, the subject has had significant recurring roles in a number of other Italian shows. (Claiming that WP:GNG was not made out would have been a better reason for nomination, I think—but sources have been identified above.) Dflaw4 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now fixed the translation issues. The page is basically a mirror image of the Italian page. The sources identified here and the sources in the Italian article can be added. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has no sources at all, which means we cannot keep it under BLP rules. It would not even survive a prod which could be passed by just putting on some sub-standard source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put on sources that I mentioned earlier. TheFallenPower (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject has at least one major role and continues to be notable through recurring roles. Has more coverage in Italian press than internationally. I think that still makes her relevent to English wikipedia.Grmike (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

System Commander

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

Long-dead software which gained only modest coverage in its day. Totally uncited article. Further sources are available at it's Wikidata page, mostly reviews. Nothing indicates WP:SUSTAINED coverage or interest. Daask (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brief Google Books search indicates broad enough and sustained coverage to satisfy GNG: eg. InfoWorld 1994-09-05 p. 97, 1995-06-19 p. 132, 1998-08-03 p. 96; PC Mag 2000-05-09 p. 208, 2002-03-26 p. 48 etc. I will try to improve this article, if I find the time (my to-do-list is long and wiki time short these days...). Pavlor (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per the reviews mentioned in the nomination, and the high-quality sources found by User:Pavlor. Modernponderer (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search produces atleast a few results for the subject. Subject therefore meets WP:GNG. Article must be kept and allowed to be brought up to acceptable standards. Other users in this thread offering to do this support my view that the article remain. ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I encourage all parties to continue discussing the content of the article on its respective talk page. In general, however, there seems to be a consensus that the subject itself is notable, which is the scope of an AFD. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TSLAQ

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

This is a biased (fails WP:NPOV) article that attempts to legitimize a non notable group of stock manipulators and, by doing so, the article itself is part of a securities fraud online manipulation strategy known as short and distort. The article creator and major contributor — QRep2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and appears to be closely tied to the subject of the article, TSLAQ. All edits to the article from several different editors that talk about this group’s controversies, including how this group has a history of spreading rumors and false information, are immediately reverted by the clearly biased article creator. Iamchinahand (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stated above is true; there is no evidence that TSLAQ engages in short and distort, I'm not closely tied to the subject (I am not part of TSLAQ, I am researching it), and there have been plenty of edits that have been left or discussed at length before being kept on the entry. I haven't seen a single well-thought argument on this page as to why TSLAQ should be deleted, just flagrant assertions. QRep2020 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason for this entry to be removed as the topic AND article as it was prior to the arguable vandalism conducted by Iamchinahand has been subject to much revision and discussion by myself, Phyronian (talk • contribs), User:Licentiatus (talk • contribs), and Schazjmd (talk • contribs) at Talk:TSLAQ; in fact, if you look at Phyronian's profile, the user appears to be solely interested in making sure the entry's language is not overtly supportive or approving of TSLAQ. All of the sources used on the article come from third-party reliable publications that themselves refer to authoritative/ primary sources. Iamchinahand (talk) has absolutely no proof besides articles which are emotively and not factually based that "securities fraud" is being conducted by anyone who has contributed to the article or the group that is the subject of the entry. Please remove this deletion request as I strongly urge the Wikipedia editors at large to keep and I ask that Iamchinahand (talk) be investigated for behaving in a manner that has no place at Wikipedia. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did make my account to work on the TSLAQ article, as I believed there were important changes I wanted to implement on the article. I am not affiliated with TSLAQ, and I do not support the group's actions. Anyone can look at my edit history on the TSLAQ article and see that I have only wanted transparency on the actions of TSLAQ, many of which were opposed by QRep2020 for reasons I thought were illegitimate, again all documented in the talk section of the article. Phyronian (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phyronian: I now see your attempted edits to the article clearly and how they were all reverted by User:QRep2020. Please feel free to add your vote to this AfD as you seem to clearly understand the situation with this article. Iamchinahand (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Iamchinahand (talk) did not even bother to read the rather robust TSLAQ Talk page as the user removed contributions from numerous editors who discussed their updates at length. This call for deletion is really rather unsubstantiated and likely for biased reasons. I'd also like to add that this particular entry has been repeatedly vandalized in the past and that if one examines the article's update history what is happening now looks very similar to what has happened in the past. QRep2020 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author of article claiming any other viewpoint is so-called "vandalism" furthers claim that this is a biased author and a poorly written article. The author reverts any edits, including edits from User:Tintdepotcom (User:Tinting2020) and User:Cihwcihw, that include mention of the major controversies of this group. This is a malicious group that will do anything to hurt Tesla, Inc. and Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla) for financial gains under the false-cover that they are "anti-fraud". The article is written in a fashion that gives credibility to what many believe to be a very malicious group without any mention of the group's serious controversy. Anyone that reads the articles talk page can see that the subject of the article is a malicious group. It is also apparent that the author of the article goes to great lengths to try to appear to be neutral and unaffiliated with the group in his so-called "Statement of Neutrality and Non-involvement". This is very fishy. I don't believe this article is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Unless this article is rewritten to include more than the one completely biased viewpoint, it will be deleted. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I urge the editors above to read WP:Introduction to deletion process and WP:Deletion is not cleanup, and review WP:AFDFORMAT. I also encourage the editors above to read WP:THREAD and learn to format their talk page comments properly. Third, WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Schazjmd (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: This article should be deleted because it fails WP:NPOV, a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. The article can not be "cleaned up" because the article's creator reverts any edits that would make the article meet these guidelines. Further, the article's creator claims "vandalism" with all attempted edits to make the article satisfy the NPOV guidelines. Iamchinahand (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iamchinahand, you're not making your case to me, I'm not the decider. I was trying to gently point out that this AFD is a mess. Schazjmd (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iamchinahand, if that is the case then the article creator needs to be addressed, rather than the article itself be deleted. We have plenty of mechanisms for dealing with such actions, which include blocking of editors and protection of articles, but not deletion of articles on notable subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have yet to see any evidence or argument in the AfD discussion as to the article's perspective being non-neutral beyond saying it is "apparent" (as in either somehow the perspective taken in the article is self-evident or known via intuition). Secondly, the claim that TSLAQ should somehow not be intellectually represented because they are allegedly "malicious" and conduct "security fraud" is irrelevant for the very reason previously given though misconstrued: Wikipedia houses reference to individuals, groups, organizations, etc. of all types, manner, focus, etc. and takes no normative position as to how "bad" or "good" the referents behave or are by nature. Finally, for now, these claims have been waged before on the TSLAQ talk page and were answered and discharged; as the article has not changed substantially since said dialog, the initial claims continue to possess no merit. QRep2020 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that on Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup it reads: "If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion". Given the various third-party major news articles on the topic, the previous discussion on Talk: TSLAQ, and the fact that the article has been live for months now, one can conclude that it passes the notability guidelines. Therefore, there's no need for this or any deletion discussion. When can this discussion be closed at the earliest and is there anything that can be done to prevent it from happening again? QRep2020 (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why my recent contribution was deleted. I simply stated my argument and provided a hyperlink to evidence of TSLAQ activity. Who is behind this deletion effort? Why don't they post specifications for what they would like to see done to the article? There is plenty of evidence. There is a phenomenon to be described. Is there some wikipedia rule that objects or situations have to be five or more years old to be described in Wikipedia? Who are you and what is nature of the problem? Just because you are more conversant with Wikipedia formatting, does not mean you should exercise dictatorial deletions. The age of fable (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some specifications and suggestions in the notes on the History page for this AfD from moderators. QRep2020 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTADVOCACY clearly explains why this page should not exist in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. According to WP:N, a topic is presumed to merit an article only if it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. According to Wikipedia, "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas..." and is not permitted under WP:NOT. The article is written in a non-neutral fashion with several cherry picked tidbits that attempt to give credibility to a group that some, if not many, people would say is a very malicious group of individuals. The way the article is currently written is comparable to writing an article about a "terrorist group" and positioning the group solely as “freedom fighters”. Both sides strongly believe their view of the group as being correct. The article creator may truly believe that the edits that he has been reverting from several different editors are inappropriate for the article. This is normal for advocates. The creator of the article's username is 'Q' (from TSLAQ), 'Rep' (short for representative), '2020'. The "Q" in TSLAQ stands for bankruptcy. Every single reference that the article uses talks about TSLAQ as a "group of short-sellers" (those who benefit from a stock price dropping); however, the first line of the article states that TSLAQ is simply a "group...who primarily organize...in order to share news, openly discuss matters concerning the company and its stock, and coordinate efforts" (no mention of short-sellers). Some other examples of non-neutrality in the article (1) group type labeled "fraud deterrence" (2) Under 'Hothi Allegations & Crowdfunding', Mr. Hothi's side of the story is written innocently and as if it is factual, while Tesla's side is written as 'allegations' (3) The article talks about Tesla being the most shorted stock, while legitimately referenced edits to include how investors that shorted Tesla stock lost $5 billion in a two-day period were reverted. This following article explains more about one view of this group's activities that are not included in the article - https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/06/jim-cramer-explains-how-short-sellers-manipulate-stocks-like-tesla-tsla/ I also urge editors interested in this subject to search Twitter and Reddit for "TSLAQ" to see for yourselves what this group is really doing. The TSLAQ article does not belong on Wikipedia. Iamchinahand (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to every problem is not article deletion. This article has plenty of problems, but the way to fix them is by editing the article, with, as I said above, the admin tools of blocking and protection being available if editors don't follow policy and talk-page consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about properly writing/editing a Wikipedia article about an anonymous online disinformation organization that has convinced some (including some in the media) that it is legitimate? Is there a Wikipedia page that explains best practices? Iamchinahand (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that we go about writing any Wikipedia article: by basing it on what is written about the subject in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great if it was that simple, but disinformation aimed at the media causes unknowing media to write about it as if it is the truth (see Short and distort). This disinformation reported by media then becomes an "independent reliable source" that can easily be manipulated on Wikipedia. In fact, one of the authors that the TSLAQ article references, Linette Lopez from Business Insider, allegedly lost her job because of low quality reporting on Tesla. Again, we are talking about an anonymous online group. For normal topics, I agree that we just need independent reliable sources. This article does not belong on Wikipedia. Iamchinahand (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The media, outlets like CNBC, LATimes.com, Wired, Bloomberg.com, is spreading disinformation? Seriously? Assuming that is the case - which it isn't by a long-shot - what exactly is the "disinformation" that these world-renowned publications are spreading? Also, where does it state that online anonymous groups are not allowed to be featured on Wikipedia? QAnon details an anonymous online group and I don't see that page getting tormented. QRep2020 (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iamchinahand, with your added text, you still seem to have difficulty grasping the idea of commenting on the content rather than on contributors. It's also odd that you copied your interpretation of the editor's name from User talk:Tinting2020#December 2019. Schazjmd (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems that, where you are not commenting on contributors, you are providing reasons to change the content of the article rather than to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to deleting an article for failing WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NPOV, I believe it is important to show that the creator and primary contributor of the article is in fact advocating. Regarding the the interpretation of the editor's name - I wanted to make sure that other editors and administrators are aware of something that is obvious to me and certainly makes the author seem to be tied to and an advocate of the subject of the article. After reading the interpretation as it was written out by User:Tinting2020, I believe it makes sense to include the interpretation in this AfD to show the obvious connection for those that missed it. I do not believe the article can be fixed; however, if administrators decide not to delete it, I will attempt (again) to fix it. My guess is that it will continue to be a battleground if left on Wikipedia. Iamchinahand (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're welcome to propose edits to the article, but why not follow everyone's advice and discuss the proposed changes first in Talk: TSLAQ? Simply making questionable updates to the article for an admittedly contentious topic without bringing them up first is what lead me to revert them and I stand by that action. Also, I won't even touch how something can be obvious but not true, i.e. the origins of my Wikipedia name which has been explained elsewhere.QRep2020 (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removing all advocacy (non-neutral content) and some clean up, the article would look like this $TSLAQ Article Draft Sandbox. If any of the changes are not obvious, I can go one by one and explain why any content was changed or removed if needed (I won't now because this AfD is already long and a mess). Iamchinahand (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do go one by one, because none of this is obvious and there is plenty of disagreement. Why you are posting this on the AfD, and still not the Talk page, is beyond me.QRep2020 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week I believe and even the initial writer of this AfD appears to not want to delete TSLAQ. Can you discharge it please, admins? Thanks. QRep2020 (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be deleted and a new neutral article properly named $TSLAQ should added. Please see detailed change explanations here $TSLAQ Article Change Explanations Iamchinahand (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense in the slightest. Why would the hashtag that a group uses get an article in place of one for the group itself? What are you really trying to accomplish here? QRep2020 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "group" is (some, not all of) Tesla stock short sellers. They are using a cashtag (hashtag) $TSLAQ. I am trying to remove advocacy from Wikipedia.Iamchinahand (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have this backwards: The group has a subset of short-sellers, yes, but there are members of TSLAQ that don't short the stock. The quotation from Ed Niedermeyer at the beginning of the existing article relates this. And there are likely members of TSLAQ who don't use the hashtag. What is more useful to readers of Wikipedia, knowing there is some hashtag being used on Twitter or that there is a group behind its use that extends beyond Twitter? Also, why did you put your reasons for your proposed changes to the text used on TSLAQ in a section on your Sandbox? How am I or anyone else supposed to respond to what you're suggesting in focused, easy to comprehend fashion? I think you need to spend more time understanding how Wikipedia operates before you go around carving up existing articles or trying to replace them with articles about derivative works. QRep2020 (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of neutrally written articles based on independent reliable sources. Ed Niedermeyer is not an independent reliable source. Besides the fact that his e-book that was referenced was published by a small unkownn boutique publisher, I also found this from a Google search on his name - https://www.tesla.com/blog/grain-of-salt, explaining how Ed Niedermeyer fabricated damaging news about Tesla and he previously ran a blog called "Tesla Death Watch". Every acceptable reference for this article refers to a hashtag/cashtag $TSLAQ that a group of short sellers use. I do not believe the article should be on Wikipedia at all, but ~~other editors~~ one editor above ~~said~~ suggested that it is better to try to salvage it so I proposed a neutral replacement.Iamchinahand (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my questions at all, but so be it. I propose you go ahead and make your arguments on Talk:TSLAQ instead of here, which is what the other editors have repeatedly suggested time and again. Also, as for BenBella Books, kindly refer to BenBella_Books. And good luck convincing people that what Tesla's website says about someone who has voiced criticism of the company is indicative of itself being an "independent reliable source". QRep2020 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for me to convince Wikipedia editors that Tesla's website is an independent reliable source since I am not using it as a source for a Wikipedia article. Iamchinahand (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using it as an argument against something else not being an independent reliable source kinda requires it be an independent reliable source, no? QRep2020 (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I request editors with a knowledge and understanding of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV to review this AfD and provide thoughts. I added this AfD because I do not believe the article can be salvaged; however, at the ~~request~~ suggestion of the editor above, User:Phil Bridger, I created a replacement article removing all non-neutrality and conjecture, and basing it purely on the text in referenced sources. You can find the replacement article as well as detailed change explanations here $TSLAQ Article Draft Sandbox. Schazjmd and Phil Bridger, What are your thoughts? Iamchinahand (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I remind editors that the customary week for voting has already passed and that the available options/ recommendations for an AfD are Delete, Keep, Merge, Redirect, and Userfy/Draftify. I don't see 'Replace' in that list. QRep2020 (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE

non notable fake company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsla1337 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TSLAQ isn't a company and there's no argument or reasoning included, so I imagine the vote from "Tsla1337" won't be counted towards the consensus judgment? QRep2020 (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and take improvement discussions to the article Talk page. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in Bloomberg, Markets Insider, Wired, CNBC, LA Times, The Verge, Business Insider, Australian Financial Review, and Vanity Fair. Schazjmd (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenges Game System

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

I cannot find any reviews or in-depth mentions of this niche game (there are some a few esoteric blog posts like [26] but blogs are not RS). One reliable book source is cited in the article, but it is not online; in either case a single source is not enough for WP:GNG nor NBOOK, and given that it is used for a simple factoid (designed by... published in...) there is no reason to assume the coverage in Schick (1991) is in-depth. We are not a catalogue of all games or such. At best I think this can redirect to Tom Moldvay, where the game is mentioned (and the Schick ref can be copied there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or redirect to creator Tom Moldvay. A mention on one page of a book is inadequate to establish notability, as are the aforementioned blog posts. Note also that several who commented on those blogs mentioned they had never heard of the subject. Damon Killian (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Good discussion - hopefully we can continue to clarify which Torrens is which. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Torrens (soldier)

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

He sounds quite not notable for me. Someone who is known only for one letter. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What are you talking about "known only for one letter"? His article says he was a Companion of the Order of the Bath (which is the fourth most senior of the British Orders of Chivalry),he was the British Commissioner to the Convention of Saint-Cloud, and was Adjutant-General in the East Indies. SpinningSpark 17:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Hi Spinning, I searched and didn't find any sources for this. I found only this Henry Torrens (British Army officer), who received a Companion of the Order of the Bath. Article can say anything, but it has to be proved by sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was responding to the deletion rationale which said nothing about sourcing. If it is shown that the article is false, likely false, or misguided then I'll change my vote. But at the moment it is just a case of needing tagging for references. SpinningSpark 13:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any of that has happened here, but JSTOR 2551551 says that the entry under this name in the Dictionary of National Biography confuses this Robert Torrens with his cousin, who has the same name, was born in the same year, and also served in the military. We need to make sure we have disentangled them properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if those errors are in this article either, but if he is being talked about in both an Economica article and the Dictionary of National Biography that shows he has some notability. SpinningSpark 11:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The entry in the Dictionary of National Biography is for Robert Torrens (economist), not this Robert Torrens. It just seems that some details are incorrect due to the confusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, just to make thinks even more confusing, it seems that Robert Torrens (judge) was another cousin, born a few years earlier, and there were other Robert Torrenses in other generations of this family. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be so much simpler if everyone was named Bruce. SpinningSpark 11:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This London Gazette page confirms that a Lt Col Robert Torrens of the West India Regiment was awarded the Order of St Anne for his service in the Waterloo campaign. This entry from 1836 refers to a Lt Col Robert Torrens CB. However, there's no indication that this is the same man and I can find no record of anyone by that name being appointed CB. If he did have the CB, then of course he would qualify for an article under WP:ANYBIO, but at the moment there's no concrete evidence of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those references are probably about Robert Torrens (economist). Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. He didn't have the CB and wasn't an officer in the West India Regiment, but in the Royal Marines (as confirmed by the LG). He also didn't serve in the Waterloo campaign and wasn't promoted lieutenant-colonel until 1819. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This entry in the Commission Book confirms he had a CB and the military history given is distinctly different from that of the economist (for instance, the economist started in the Royal Marines, our man started in the 19th Dragoons.) So I am definitely still at keep. SpinningSpark 10:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source, which published his Waterloo Letter also says he had a CB—not shown in the snippet I linked, but it says "He was appointed a Companion of the Bath and received the second class of St. Anne of Russia". Note his birth date is given as 1784, not 1780. SpinningSpark 10:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that I was wrong about your (Necrothesp's) sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional research by User:Spinningspark. Now we have two reliable sources that say he had the CB. That satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start Fitness

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

Non-notable company. References do not support notability: they establish the commpany exists, sponsors some sporting events, and grew quickly in 2014. Not notable. cagliost (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the third reference could be counted as significant coverage but the other Chronicle Live source focuses mainly only on the race. With significant coverage in only one source, the company does not meet WP:NCORP. Searching on Google News also turns up no sources, but this could have been muddled by "Start Fitness" being a common phrase. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Darylgolden, the third reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough per WP:NCORP stardards. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev as an obvious solution for a little-sourced article. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kailasanathan

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

This is the article of the dubbed version of Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev. A separate article for dubbed version could be unnecessary. Noobie anonymous (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Noobie anonymous (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev; if it doesn't hold, please re-nominate, but one source buried deep within to source a bit player for a dub certainly isn't enough for this to stand on. Closing. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Emma Blackery. I will add Hydronium Hydroxide's suggested inline comment GirthSummit _(blether) 15:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves (Emma Blackery song)

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

No sources or any indication of notability. WikiAviator (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigcov not found. Ref WP:NSONG, Redirect to Emma Blackery, adding {{r from song}} and an inline comment along the lines of . Singles and albums by notable artists will/should basically never be deleted. Withdraw nom to save time? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The song was just released. If it charts high in the charts, we might have to recreate the page. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu: Redirection (without deletion) preserves article content - if WP:NSONG should be later met it can be easily reverted. The same applies to Dandelion. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 22:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. In heart of what you have just said, I will also say Redirect to Emma Blackery. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the accomplishments listed in the article may pass NACTOR, there simply aren't enough reliable sources to verify the information. If new sources are found or become available, this should probably be revisited. – bradv🍁 00:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Gibbes

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

A non notable actor with no reliable sources apparent. Potential COI issues. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - google news search also shows no RS. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Gibbes is famous in Australia for being on Prisoner. That alone is notable, but her early appearance on Round The Twist is also notable. She was a significant Australian actress! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Chris.sherlock - are there any independent secondary sources that would demonstrate notability? At the moment the only two external links are a fan site and IMDB, neither of which are reliable sources for the purposes of WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check IMDB - in this case just to see the incredible list of notable shows she appeared on. She made appearances on Blue Heelers, Sea Change, Home and Away, All Saints, Wildside, Water Rats, GP, The Flying Doctors and The Young Doctors, all extremely significant Australian dramas, in a different age of Australia.

It’s probably more helpful to check Trove to find secondary sources given her age - https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=%22Robyn+Gibbes%22

What I’m saying is that she satisfies WP:NACTOR. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve checked Trove and there’s nothing substantial that would indicate notability. A list of credits on IMDB does not indicate notability, and notability can’t be inherited by just appearing in a minor role on a notable programme. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a fan site and IMBd are two extremely non-reliable sources. Wikipedia is supposed to be built on reliable sources, not this type of junk.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I have absolutely no problem keeping this article in terms of WP:NACTOR, because the subject has had significant roles in very famous Australian TV shows, including Round the Twist and Prisoner: Cell Block H. As for WP:GNG, there are clearly some problems, although here are a couple of sources which may help—the first is a BuzzFeed article, which isn't the most reliable of news outlets, but it isn't the worst, either; and the second is an excerpt from a Variety review of a film, Wild Horses (1984), which provides a much briefer comment on the subject:

→https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliawilling/what-the-cast-of-round-the-twist-looks-like-today

→https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UXJZAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Robyn+Gibbes%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Robyn+Gibbes%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid_snPldjoAhUl6nMBHZxuBpI4ChDoAQhCMAQ

The subject also gets a lot of hits in Google Books and at newspapers.com, but it's doubtful whether they would do much to assist with WP:SIGCOV. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gabbie Hanna. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelion (Gabbie Hanna song)

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

The song has not been described by reliable sources. Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref WP:NSONG, Redirect to Gabbie Hanna, adding {{r from song}} and an inline comment along the lines of . It's supposed to be released this month (possibly delayed due to COVID-19) and is mentioned at her article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~- the song isn't out yet, so here is my idea; if we draft it, we can reinsert the article back into the mainspace. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Redirect to Gabbie Hanna, as that is probably a better option. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whilst a detailed analysis was performed on the sources presented by one editor to suggest the individual does not meet GNG, there seems clear consensus that the sources are sufficient. Fenix down (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Voll

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

fails WP:NFOOTY Mightytotems (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mightytotems (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 13:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. She plays in the top-tier league in Germany. (She has quite a bit of coverage on that basis, too.) That NFOOTY argues for keeping tens of thousands of articles on one-game male players who could not pass GNG in a million years but tries to suggest that top-tier women players aren't notable isn't a problem with the articles or the topics, it's a problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that needs correcting urgently. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She plays in a top tier league (Frauen-Bundesliga). Meets WP:NFOOTY. End of story. And before anyone comes at me with a claim that most female leagues aren't included, that's because of a major failing of every Wikiproject Football member on every level, whose biases on not documenting women's football is atrocious. Silverseren^C 05:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Frauen-Bundesliga is included at the list of leagues, but is in the list of top-tier leagues that are not fully-professional, so she does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 13:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in online French- or German-language sources. All of the online coverage is routine (database entries, transfer announcements, match reports), so I can't see how this article would satisfy the GNG. Perhaps if Voll features regularly for Sand, things could change but for now its WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On the basis of substantial coverage in German and French newspapers, some of which are included as references, the article certainly qualifies for general notability. You need to do searches with the French and German versions of Google to find all these, not just with the English version. It looks to me as if this and several similar articles about women footballers are being put up for deletion unfairly.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for online coverage in French- and German-language media, and found very little that I would consider "substantial." I added the most substantial thing I found (from Stadtanzeiger Ortenau) to the article, but online coverage Voll is almost entirely routine. I don't see why it's unfair to invoke the GNG here. Jogurney (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - only has a few top level appearances and - since WP:NFOOTY is palpable nonsense - we must look at WP:GNG. I can see both sides but there is evidence of non-routine coverage. I came down on the side of keep, but with this one I can accept that others may like to see a bit more coverage before they commit themselves. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep vote language is very weak with little in the way of genuine sourcing provided. Additional time is allowed to present these, but without I'll close as delete. Simply stating an individual meets GNG is not enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, she plays in the Frauen-Bundesliga which doesn't pass FPL, but just by doing a quick Google search, it obviously passes GNG. It's so cringe seeing everyone say "iT dOeSnT pAsS fPl sO iT dOeSnT pAsS gNg." when GNG takes precedence over FPL. FPL is only used when the player has had little coverage but played in a fully professional league. Literally 75% of the stubs for English, French and Brazilian footballers barely even pass FPL, but would never even pass GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find was transfer news and brief mentions which don't count for GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to give keep voters one more chance to discuss specific sources. There's barely anything here pointing to GNG-satisfying sources. If people can't do this, then I will close as delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since a simple Google is apparently too hard for some people, here are many, many sources. [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and many many many more if anyone bothers to do a simple Google. Smartyllama (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's my analysis of Smartyllama's provided sources. If anyone else has any that could count towards GNG, please feel free to add to the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:11, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sport1.de/fussball/frauen-bundesliga/2019/05/bundesliga-frauen-charlotte-voll-wechselt-von-paris-saint-germain-zum-sc-sand (link # 1)	The article is mostly a quote from the subject	? Moot.	3 paragraphs, 1 of which is a quote	✘ No
https://rmcsport.bfmtv.com/football/psg-la-gardienne-charlotte-voll-reprend-au-piano-un-chant-d-ultras-1637457.html (link # 2)	Largest news channel in FR	Largest news channel in FR	2 paragraphs about a piano cover	✘ No
https://www.fupa.net/berichte/bayer-04-leverkusen-bayers-fussballerinnen-haben-wieder-abst-2625538.html (link # 3)	? Moot.	? Moot.	Bare mention in routine coverage	✘ No
https://www.vavel.com/br/futebol-internacional/2017/07/19/franca/809021-ex-hoffenheim-goleira-charlotte-voll-e-contratada-pelo-paris-saint-germain.html (links # 4 & 8)	Mostly quotes from interested parties.	Credentialed media org	Routine coverage of hiring. 5 paragraphs, 2 of which are quotes from team employees.	✘ No
http://www.parisfans.fr/club/le-psg-annonce-officiellement-les-departs-de-christiane-voll-et-melike-pekel-398805.html (link # 5)	? Moot.	? Moot.	Routine coverage of departure from team. 2 paragraphs and an embedded tweet.	✘ No
https://www.pauta.cl/deportes/christiane-endler-con-el-poder-y-el-futbol-en-sus-manos (link # 6)	? Moot.	? Moot.	Profile of another player; Voll mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/psg-women-goalkeeper-charlotte-voll-shows-off-her-football-skills (link # 7)	Just a video of her playing football.	Just a video of her playing football.	Not coverage at all.	✘ No
https://www.culturepsg.com/news/feminines/le-psg-confirme-les-departs-de-voll-et-pekel/26771 (link # 9)	? Moot.	? Moot.	3 paragraphs of routine coverage of departure from team.	✘ No
https://www.stadtanzeiger-ortenau.de/willstaett/c-sport/die-deutsche-u-20-nationaltorhueterin-charlotte-voll-wechselt-zur-kommenden-saison-zum-sc-sand_a24141 (link # 10)	? Moot.	? Weekly newspaper with ~185k circulation.	4 paragraphs, 2 of which are quotes from interested persons.	✘ No
https://sport24.lefigaro.fr/football/transferts/fil-info/charlotte-voll-rejoint-le-psg-868953 (link # 11)	? Moot.	? Moot.	1 paragraph + twitter embed.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

So basically what you're saying is profiles of her don't count because they quote her (as profiles generally do), profiles of other players that mention her don't count because they're not profiles of her, and articles that are primarily about her and don't quote her don't count because they're too short? That makes no sense. Articles about subjects frequently quote them, that's perfectly normal, they often also quote people connected to the person they're about, which is also perfectly normal, and if the entire article is only a few paragraphs, it's impossible for it to spend more than a few paragraphs discussing the subject. These sources satisfy GNG, easily. Smartyllama (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, I don't think I said that. GNG requires coverage to be significant, addressing the subject "directly and in detail". Do you believe [38] does so? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are cherry picking sources. Most of those meet GNG, maybe a couple don't but there's more than enough. Also I was responding to the table above but I have no idea if you posted it because it's unsigned, my apologies for the confusion if it wasn't you. Smartyllama (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, Yes, I did forget to sign, it should be fixed now :). Is there a particular source in the table you think meets GNG? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mdaniels5757, Sources primarily about the subject meet GNG, even if they include quotes from her or people who are connected to her, as long as the sources themselves are independent (i.e. not a team website or something like that.) It is extremely common to include quotes from people in articles, and indeed it would be hard to find an article in a reliable source that didn't have any quotes, so I have no idea what your issue is there. This applies no matter how long or short the article is, though it probably wouldn't apply to something as short as a tweet, even if it were from a reliable source. This gets the following sources past GNG: #1, probably #2, definitely #4, #5, #9, #10, and #11. #3, #6, and #7 are more edge cases, and as you correctly pointed out, #4 and #8 are the same. But still, that's at least six and possibly seven sources. That's more than enough. Smartyllama (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, I agree that there's nothing wrong with quoting a subject of the article per se, but, e.g., an "article" that is only a quote from the subject would not be independent (as GNG) requires. Taking #5 (which you said "definitely" passed GNG) as an example, I don't see how it addresses Voll "in detail". #5 is 6 sentences long (plus a twitter embed), and Voll is discussed in only 2 of those sentences. In my view, that is not in enough detail to for the source to count towards GNG. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the point of the "definitely" wasn't to indicate that that source was particularly strong compared to the others, but to make it clear that the "probably" only applied to #2 and not what came after it. Sorry if that was unclear. Smartyllama (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)> Mevermind, that ambiguity would only apply to #4, not to #5, which you referenced. Smartyllama (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I reached the same conclusion as Mdaniels5757 when I reviewed online coverage. I thought the Stadtanzeiger Ortenau article was borderline significant coverage, but it's a regional newspaper with pretty insignificant circulation, so I'd need to see more to satisfy the GNG, and the vavel.com article was the next closest, but it was entirely routine. Jogurney (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this person passes WP:GNG. I don't know what other people count as significant coverage, but it is pretty clear to me that two paragraphs satisfies it easily. Just because an article contains a quoted paragraph does not mean it cannot be significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- cleary meets GNG going through the sources. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment so people are keep voting keep for GNG, despite seeing a perfect column of red X's in the table above. Oh well. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That table is one person's opinion. Others are allowed to disagree on whether certain sources satisfy GNG. I don't understand the point of this comment. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paragraphs and profiles are quite adequate to demonstrate notability when we have numerous male footballers allowed stubs with far less. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Comments about "routine coverage" do not cut it in the face of the obvious discrimination female players are up against. Agathoclea (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. A third nomination in four months is disruptive. The close of the 2nd nomination properly noted some time should elapse. In this case I would suggest 6 months from the close of the second nomination as a minimum time. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Park (TV series)

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

Among the nine sources in the article:

1 is a patent and trademark listing.
2 and 3 are directory listings from TV magazines that merely confirm the show's existence.
4 only mentions the show in one sentence of an article otherwise dedicated to creepypastas.
5 is an interview where some Z-list celebrity mentions the show in passing as something he was scared of.
6 is some kind of directory listing that doesn't even mention the show at all.
7 and 8 are just listicles from ScreenRant and Cracked that do not cover the show in depth.
9 is a subchannel of a YouTube show and therefore not an RS.

In short, the sources present in the article do not in any way verify any sort of notability. Extensive searching on GBooks, American Radio History, and newspapers.com yielded nothing.

The article was previously prodded, deprodded, and then AFD'ed twice back in December, but both times failed to gather consensus due to lack of participation. As highlighted above, the sources added in the intervening months have done absolutely nothing to assert any semblance of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: Dude, again? This is the third time you're nominating this article in less than four months. There was a three-hour gap between the first and second AfD, and the last one closed exactly two months ago (Feb 3rd). Sandstein's close said, "The result was no consensus. Again. This renomination was reasonable, but I suggest letting some time pass until the third one." I imagine they meant longer than eight weeks. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per above. I've sent this to WP:AN. Modernponderer (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Cole

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

Successful actor, but doesn’t meet GNG or ENT Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really familiar with this actress, but it seems like she's had some notable roles; a recurring role on Gilmore Girls (33 episodes total apparently), and has had a few notable movie roles in Prey for Rock & Roll, Dark House and The Village Barbershop. She also won two best actress awards for The Village Barbershop, at the Newport Beach Film Festival 1 and the Cinequest Film & Creativity Festival 2. There seems to be very little biographical info about her online except a short piece on her mixed with some interview quotes in Film Comment Vol. 39, Iss. 5. 3 Apparently she left acting to be an acting coach in Denver, Colorado. 4 If the awards above are notable (I'm not familiar with them) I'd definitely lean towards keep since she's had a few other notable roles as well. Will hold off on officially voting for right now. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considerable supporting actress history in a number of films and television shows, meets WP:ACTOR. Nate • (chatter) 23:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to me that they have appeared in enough notable films and been a recurring role in at least Gilmore Girls, looks entirely notable and I hope someone fleshes out the article! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete It is time we stopped being an IMDb mirror. There are no other sources on the article, which means no reliable sources, which means nothing passes BLP guidelines, which means we must delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has prominent roles in notable productions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think the subject passes WP:ENT without too many problems, by virtue of her above-mentioned roles. Once again, with a lot of these actor/actress articles, there seems to be quite little coverage despite a good body of work. I have only found two reliable sources thus far—the first simply states that the subject's part in Gilmore Girls is an "important side role", and the second is a mere mention (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2014/10/01/gilmore-girls-on-netflix-a-refresher-and-ranking-on-each-season/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/movies/film-in-review-prey-for-rock-and-roll.html, respectively). I hope that more sources can be found, and I thank GoldenAgeFan1 for the references he/she has uncovered. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritesh Malik

AfDs for this article:

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

pure promotionalism for non-notable investor.

The "awards," n under m from various sources, so far from showing notability , show a reliance upon promotionalism for his career. The list of the firms he has invested in isn't encyclopedic content ; the list of co-backers of his fund amounts to name-dropping

Almost all the references are mere notices of his investments of so-called awards; the remainder are promotional write-ups. or interviews where he says what he pleases about himself. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Technically passes WP:NFOOTY; insufficient consensus to ignore that fact in light of the short duration he has played. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Torvund

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

This is a tough one as I feel like there is a possible case of WP:CRYSTAL as he has only played 5 minutes in a professional league which wouldn't really be enough to be notable. There is also this reference [39] but isn't quite enough for him to have an article here. Glaceon (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Glaceon (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Glaceon (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Glaceon (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 19 years and is actively playing see little point in deleting it.Further the subject has played for HungrayU19 team in the 2019 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualification as per this.If he had retired or was injured it was different.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, when he was cut from Stabæk's senior team it was not even announced, he just disappeared from the roster. Players on this level of obscurity should be deleted or at best draftified. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscure start of a career player. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory, but that is what we become if we include everyone who makes pro-team rosters just for that fact alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTBALL and as is young and has ongoing career we allow grace to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 13:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTY because Nemzeti Bajnokság I is an FPL. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject's notability seems to be rising, as he is still young and actively playing, but does not quite fit GNG. Article should be draftified for now.Mukedits (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, but keep votes are weak, not seeing anything at the moment that indicates GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTY. Hungarian version is very well referenced. English version needs improving not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, here is a link to the Hungarian wikipedia article that may assist editors in assessing Torvund's wikinotableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a WP:CRYSTAL, maybe a draftify? If his career was over he'd be a clear delete, might meet WP:GNG, a tough one to determine. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that GNG is likely to be met soon. (non-admin closure) — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 05:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adílio Varela

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

Possibly fails WP:GNG despite very limited game time in an FPL based league (23 mins as a substitute) which would be a pass on WP:NFOOTY. Glaceon (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Glaceon (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Glaceon (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Glaceon (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY subject is just 23 years and actively playing see little point in deleting it.Last played on 8th March 2020.If he had retired or was injured it was different.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We wait until people pass the GNG to create articles, we do not create articles on the assumption that they almost certainly will soon pass GNG. We only create articles on people who are presently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTBALL and as is young(ish) and has ongoing career we allow grace to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 13:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PotW. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. If they possibly don't meet GNG, then WP:BEFORE should be applied, so that at least it's probable. Though entirely moot as either NFOOTBALL or GNG should be met, unless this a former footballer who has only made a very brief fully-professional appearance - which is not the case. Nfitz (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Nfitz: I did do a WP:BEFORE and only showed up six results none of them suitable enough for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – bradv🍁 23:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Blue Key

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

Collegiate honor society with a single chapter, at the University of Florida; per WP:BRANCH such organizations are generally not notable enough for an article. Mentions in media are strictly local (North and Central Florida) and mostly by the de facto campus newspaper, the Independent Florida Alligator. Subject had a few mentions in non-local media in coverage of a 1990s defamation suit against it, but per WP:ILLCON that is insufficient to establish its notability.

If kept - and I understand that content issues aren't themselves grounds for deletion - the article has numerous problems which should be addressed. It has been a cesspool of COI editing (some con, mostly pro) for years. The entire Background section is taken nearly verbatim from the org's official website. And the Controversies section is its most frequently edited part - usually by IPs local to the subject (Gainesville, FL) who blank negative information about it. Perhaps (again, if the page isn't deleted) it should be extended-confirmed protected. Damon Killian (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources already present in the article support independent notability per WP:BRANCH: ...unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. The campus organization's coverage extends beyond the campus through multiple articles (E.g., Associated Press, Tampa Bay Times, etc.) and especially concerning the organization's influence on Florida state-level politics. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rambabu Gosala

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation process. No indication of wp:notability. No suitable coverage in references. Most were to blogs and youtube videos. One review briefly mentioned him as author of lyrics of a song, and three of the references are that same review. Previously deleted, and also tagged for wp:notability since November 2019. Also some concern that the creator is obviously wiki experienced but has 22 lifetime edits under this user name and created the article en masse on their 8th edit. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only two RS on the article are passing mentions. A Google news search also appears to only yield passing mentions. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Darylgolden. Most of the references cited in the article are primary sources; there's also a couple of duplicates as well. A Google search of the subject doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to El Morabba3. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Morabba3 (album)

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation/review. No indication of wp:notability. Zero references, no content, just a track list and performer list. Could be merged to band's article which is also pretty sparse. Creator is blocked as a sock so unlikely to be remedied. North8000 (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly not notable. Make into a redirect to El Morabba3. With a very clear cut like this in future, just convert into a redirect without coming to AfD. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing noteworthy about article as it is. Rob van vee 12:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it's an eponymous album, I see no point in redirecting it back to the band's page: of anyone Googles it, they'll find what they're looking for. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to El Morabba3: Barely found anything about their self-titled album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IP from Egypt that restored the article from a redirect is User:Tamer Gunner evading his block, which either means we should immediately restore the redirect or speedily delete the article. In either case, the article should be protected from recreation by IPs. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Breitmayer

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

Has recurring roles in a few TV shows and a few movie credits, but not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As the nominator notes, the subject has had some recurring TV roles, the most prominent of which would be his role in The Middle (TV series). While it does not seem that he has had any lead roles in films, he has had a number of secondary or supporting roles in notable productions, like A Serious Man, Smosh: The Movie and The Stranger Within (1990 film) (the latter is a good TV film, by the way, starring Ricky Shroder—check it out!). I feel that this is a borderline case for WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the rare recurring roles do not rise to the level of notability for an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh P Barnwal}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sovereign states in the 2020s}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinza browser}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haywood-Wakefield Band}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettleman Station, California}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelly Boston}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton H. Biow}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yanín Madrid}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Kalumba}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ximena Ríos}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison González}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobo Ramallo}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Pérez}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Perez Cascallana}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Economy in Kazakhstan}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are Limitless}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovar Sadiki}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siraje Ssentamu}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Wasswa}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosrat Baiz}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall Station, California}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilmore Junction, Nebraska}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three V Crossing, North Dakota}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaney Ranch, California}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl, 12th Prince Kinsky of Wchinitz and Tettau}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasin Osman}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandeep G Varier}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunsin Oyekan}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy Silverman (2nd nomination)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton H. Biow}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Kremer}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kano (company)}}