Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 April	13 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 speedy keep. There is a variation in the spelling of town's name, but apparently they are the same town. WP:GEOLAND applies. Also see comment by GSS. Side note: nominator blocked for self promotion/COI. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kadiana (village)

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

I am sorry, GSS but this is a small village with no evidence of notability. Please do not take this personally. Hissamelriys (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close. See WP:GEOLAND. If it exists and we have sources confirming existence, it is notable. Java Hurricane 16:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized populated place. The district website confirms that the subject is a panchayat village.[1] • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the text "Kadiana" in the census. But there's a Kariana. Is that the same place? If so, then it's a village with a population of more than 1,000. We routinely keep villages in the US with less than a tenth of Kariana's population.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: as per this it looks like the same village under slightly different spellings. It has the population of 1,564. GSS ^💬 18:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note this article was nominated in response to this so, I guess WP:SKCRIT#2 a or b might apply here. GSS ^💬 18:05, 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gina V. D'Orio

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

No references or claim to notability JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our musician notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - she sang with at least two barely notable bands. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on nominating those two bands as well. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:52, 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 Manual redirect to the relevant articles.. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Theft Auto III characters

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

All of these articles lack any reliable sources that indicate notability. They are essentially what WP:VGSCOPE #6 is referring to: lists of characters lacking secondary sources. They have all been boldly redirected in the past, but restored by other users without discussion. I think it's time to put these to bed. I am also nominated the following related pages for the same reason:

– Rhain ☔ 15:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 15:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The basis for removing these is only on the lack of citations. Far better to try to remedy this problem, than to delete the articles. They should only be deleted if no amount of editing work can bring them to a standard that is acceptable. GUtt01 (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles also fail the first point raised by WP:VGSCOPE #6: that they must be "written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception". I have tried to remedy this problem—I researched and rewrote the main GTA III and Vice City articles, for instance—but the content simply lacks sources, and I believe that no amount of editing work will bring them to an acceptable standard. I would love to be proven wrong. – Rhain ☔ 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would List of Grand Theft Auto V characters have any issues with it, possibly? GUtt01 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered adding it to the list, even as a brief mention, but decided against it as I felt it would split the discussion too much. It's considerably more fleshed out than the other lists, and there's far better potential for sources. If anything, I think it should be reviewed separately. – Rhain ☔ 15:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The nominator correctly notes the lack of available reliable sources (not in regards to the use in the current revisions, rather the availability in general) to demonstrate the necessity of separate character lists for these games. A (quick) WP:BEFORE from my side brought up little useful material. If there are character traits that absolutely have to be known to understand the plots of the respective games, they can be incorporated into the respective plot sections instead (of course within the bounds of our 700-word limit). IceWelder [✉] 22:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. There are no sources that would help these masses of fancruft pass WP:LISTN, and they fail WP:PLOT as they consist practically entirely of in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No notability independent of the games the characters appear in (WP:INHERIT). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to their respective articles. No significant coverage of these lists cannot currently be found and all the infomation is just plot infomation from the game. However, given when these games were released most coverage will be found in old magazines that are likely hard to access so it is better to redirect than delete as an editor might be able to recreate the article in the future whilst establishing notablity for WP:LISTN. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to their respective articles per Spy-cicle. Redirects are cheap, and there's no downside to redirecting them for now in case someone identifies sources (which would likely be easy, as the GTA games are very popular and have generated a lot of independent coverage) and wanted to make the improvements. Plus, a lot of individual search terms currently redirect to these pages, so redirecting them somewhere would be less disruptive than having a bunch of search term redirect to dead pages. (Also, because all of these lists were nominated in one bunch, it's difficult to make a case for each one individually. Redirecting them would make that unnecessary.) — Hunter Kahn 12:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added Lists of Grand Theft Auto characters to the nomination, as the deletion of the others would render it a useless disambiguation with only one article remaining. – Rhain ☔ 13:59, 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 delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood Junction, California

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

The phrase "located on the Southern Pacific Railroad" gives away that, yes, it's another rail spot with no settlement. In fact the oldest topo I could find, from the 1950s, shows it as a junction with an already abandoned line. Since then, the whole thing has been abandoned and has been converted into the Bizz Johnson Trail. This passage describing the trail states that there was a maintenance facility of some sort at the junction in the 1920s but I can find nothing talking about it as a town; Westwood itself is quite a ways to the south. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of a populated place or anything else that might be notable. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 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) b uidhe 07:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Dead Aeroplanes

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Kleuske (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ha, well, this album has more coverage, as it was four years further into the Internet age: CMJ, AllMusic, Drowned in Sound, Boston Phoenix, to start. Interested to hear what other editors think. Caro7200 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unfortunately I misspelled the name of the album when creating the initial link, and it should be Ghosts of Dead Aeroplanes. The band and album where wildly covered in printed UK/Europe press at the time, sadly those sources don't appear to be online. Missbarbell (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missbarbell, sorry, didn't notice that you had just created these, should have paid more attention. My opinion is that they should not have been nominated so quickly. Caro7200 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I assume that nomination for deletion to 'Academics and educators' was a mistake? Missbarbell (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prolapse (band)#Discography per Kleuske.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Caro7200. I found album reviews from CMJ, Slow Thrills and Tom Francis. I believe those sources, including the ones from NM and Drowned in Sound, are reliable enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this source here shows it meets criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. Apollo825 ^{- talk to me baby -} 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Superastig. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:58, 24 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 Color rendering index. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Color rendering capacity

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

The outcome of a 2019 merge proposal was to propose deletion (Talk:Color rendering index#Suggest merge January 2019), on the grounds that the term Color rendering capacity was not notable, and the content was not worthy of merging. A 2008 deletion proposal recommended deletion of the page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color rendering capacity), but since then the article has been re-created. So, deletion or a merge to Color rendering index seem to be the most reasonable options. Klbrain (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content covers the same area as color rendering index. The contributor's paper is much-cited, arguing for some relevant expertise, but this phrase seems not to be standard in the industry. Any development under this title would be duplicating the contents at Color rendering index and Color vision. Best to delete and redirect to CRI. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, bit of a problem when this article's lead states "It is one of several measures of color rendering index." and yet that article does not mention "color rendering capacity", this appears to be a term that has not been adopted so a delete or redirect in line with Wtshymanski above appears appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 13 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) 14:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison's Mailbox

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

Advertorialized article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim in evidence here is that two of their songs were used in an indie horror film more than a decade after they broke up -- but that claim is completely unsourced, and placing music in film or television is also the one criterion in NMUSIC that undermines itself by explicitly saying that a band shouldn't have an article at all if it's the only NMUSIC criterion they pass. The tone here is heavily advertorialized in spots ("Local Mailbox performances became a social event, creating a frenzy not seen in a long time"), and the article is not well-sourced enough to claim that they pass NMUSIC #1 -- of the nine sources here, fully eight are local to the band's own local media market, five are glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of other things or people rather than coverage that's substantively about the band, and the only extralocal source is an unrecoverable dead link that's being used solely to source the tangential fact that the A&R guy who signed this band to a minor indie label was also a part-time member of a different otherwise unrelated band -- thus having nothing to do with this band's notability or lack thereof. Also, the article was created by an WP:SPA who has never made a single edit to Wikipedia on any other topic but this band. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed -- but nothing here, either in the sourcing or in the substance, is enough to get this band over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't view any of the NWI Times articles because their host refuses to make them available in Europe (I just get some speil about GDPR) so I'm going to have to trust the nominator's description: but I couldn't find anything else about them online. They may have worked hard and built a local fanbase and a buzz back in the day, but there's nothing that demonstrates significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local band from south of Gary, Indiana area who played once in Tennessee. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Injection Molding Magazine

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

Non-notable defunct trade periodical. No sources and tagged as such for 10 years. My own searching found nothing useful. WorldCat has an entry, but doesn't list a single library that hold it in their collection. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 13 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 Prolapse (band). bibliomaniac 1 5 21:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Backsaturday

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Vaguely remember this band and album, couldn't find anything beyond AllMusic and Trouser Press, too bad more print coverage wasn't digitized... Caro7200 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The band and album where wildly covered in printed UK/Europe press (including NME, Melody Maker & Record Mirror) at the time, sadly those sources don't appear to be online. Missbarbell (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Missbarbell: there won't have been any coverage in Record Mirror... it stopped publication in 1991. I do agree that it's very likely to have been reviewed in NME and Melody Maker, and probably in Q, Select and Vox as well. But it's the same problem that many UK bands that predate the internet era have... these sources are not online to be able to confirm any of this. The band did get a fair amount of attention in the music press and airplay on alternative music radio, so I would not be surprised to find print coverage if I could get to the British Library, but as this is not possible at present I can't make a case for keeping the article... it may have to be redirected until coverage can be found. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prolapse (band): Barely found anything about the album. Could've voted for Keep, had coverage mentioned by Caro7200 and Missbarbell have archived copies online. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:09, 16 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) 14:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrishti Ganguly Rindani

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

Her only "Notable" role is a secondary role in just one "web series" ,which itself is 10 episodes long, on a not so popular streaming platform. I don't think that is enough to justify an article. Daiyusha (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is filled with unreliable sources. The first two are just episode lists, which are passing mentions, and the third one doesn't even mention the main subject. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. I have a strong suspicion that a lot of our articles on actresses and actors are on non-notable people. We clearly have let new articles be too easy to create.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: its a stupid loophole/cycle. If an actor has role in "multiple" notable tv shows/films, actor is considered notable. Multiple is considered as "2 or more than 2" in AfD by fanboys, or UPEs. And the guidelines for TV shows are way too lax. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think the worst loophole we may have though is considering almost every film produced by the "Holloywood" complex from 1920-1950 to be notable. There were huge numbers of films produced in that time. In many of them we have interpreted some very minor parts as "significant". I have found a few films that have articles with no sources, not even IMDb, listed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is Handle with Care (1932 film). I see none of the sourced looking better than a directory listing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My WP:BEFORE did not yield any results that would help make out WP:GNG, and the subject hasn't had enough significant roles in notable productions to meet WP:NACTOR, either. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:22, 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Patrick Harvey

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

There is an earlier Don Harvey who seems to have been a notable actor, but I was unable to find additional sources on this actor. That leaves us with multiple citations to his own website, IMDb which is not reliable and another directory type source, nothing that comes even close to constituting the multiple indepth 3rd party reliable secondary sources an article needs to pass the general notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This actor appeared in high-profile secondary roles in several films and was listed in opening credits in them. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actor who was nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award (per the ref in the article). Sources for just that one role include this and this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep roles are notable enough to pass WP:BIO Rhino131 (talk) 20:29, 16 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. Initial nomination reason was invalidated and a new one hasn't been presented. Any other merge discussions can happen elsewhere. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rivière des Pins

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

There is only one article that includes 'Rivière des Pins' in its title. Perhaps Rivière des Pins (Blanc Lake) should be moved to Rivière des Pins. Leschnei (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Rivière des Pins (Blanc Lake) should be moved; there's at least one more stream with the name and it's a matter of time before an article is created about it. – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Veillg1 has added a second entry, Rivière des Pins (Nicolet River tributary), so there is now no reason to delete this page. Leschnei (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: with Leschnei's addition this is a perfectly valid little dab page with a useful "see also" (and I've now added a reciprocal "See also" link from Rivière aux Pins). PamD 08:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, or maybe we should merge the two dab pages for "des Pins" and "aux Pins"? PamD 08:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's been an entertaining 50 minutes or so, sorting out the various aspects of "pins" including making sure that Jacob Pins could be found by his surname... Such is the time-sink of Wikipedia in lockdown. But much more constructive than doing jigsaw puzzles, with which it has a certain similarity! PamD 09:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment if it is merged, it should use Rivière Pins (disambiguation)/Rivière Pins -- though you could also use Pine River (disambiguation) -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: no point in inventing another term, nor in using an English term for rivers named in French. PamD 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rivière Pins" would be a valid search term for either of the existing pages. And as for Pine River, the translated English title should exist from English languages works from before the Quiet Revolution, just as many places in Quebec have older translated English names that aren't used much anymore. Since such a search term should already exist, splitting the difference in the spellings would also result in such a pagename, it doesn't favour one form over another. Using the English translated term might be anachronistic, as we're not in the early 20th or 19th century anymore. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE There seem to be additional rivers (when I looked in bgc) with "Rivière de Pin" or "Rivière au Pin" about. (singular of pins (pines) is (pine) pin). Which someone might want to add to various articles on rivers to which they are tributaries to. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 22:35, 13 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) 14:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Newbury

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

This page was created by an SPA whose name matches that of a PR & marketing specialist. I cannot find any significant coverage of the article's subject, beyond some local coverage of him using his compensation payout to launch his career, which falls under WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a pay in Who's Who type cite, nor is it Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, all the actual independent coverage is about him getting an advanced prosthetic leg. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - interesting, but lacks significant coverage. We are neither an Guinness Book of World Records, nor a LinkedFacePage. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan

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

Non-notable actress fails WP:NACTOR. No improvement since previous nomination. Störm (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I would have voted to "delete", but it seems there are a few write-ups at newspapers.com which warrant a closer look. I have applied for them at WP:RX and will provide them here as soon as I can. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 16:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the sources I alluded to above. I haven't yet had the chance to go over them, but would encourage input from others. Some go over two pages: here, here, here, here, here and here. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first and last articles provide in-depth coverage, while the second is mainly about the subject's mother. The problem is—all three articles come from a Louisville newspaper and it seems that the subject either is or was a resident of Louisville. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:35, 20 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 Operation Avalanche. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Boardman

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

This article was created in 2003 without references. It continued to be edited in good faith, but without any references. I think there is a good reason why there are no references for this article: because there never was an "Operation Boardman". I'm pretty sure the Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL in this AFD discussion will turn up nothing at at all. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a cite. I am the author of the cited book. The original source was the United States Army in World War II series. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, is there much that can be written about this deception operation? Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I was writing a dictionary. It's purpose was to include obscure codewords to answer the question "What the heck was BOARDMAN?" In an encyclopedia we have to answer "How did BOARDMAN work? Where?" That information is not readily available. All that remains is the name. Not much else. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: added a ref to Jennings: [2]. Holt also seems to mention the operation: [3]. Suspect there are a few more mentions in these works, also: [4] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrantX: G'day, Tom, not sure if you are still editing Wikipedia, but if you are, I hope you are well and I wonder if you could take a look at your sources to see if there is significant coverage of this operation (given your previous work in relation to World War II deception operations)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it looks like Errant is no longer active; it would have been good to get their perspective. Anyway, I think a redirect to the Avalanche page is probably the best solution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Operation Avalanche, where it is mentioned. I am not seeing the significiant coverage or WP:NEVENT being met. b uidhe 08:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect You changed my mind. As long as the name is recorded on the Avalanche page that seems sufficient. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 15:23, 13 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) 10:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Rodríguez (singer)

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

Subject of article does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO nor does subject have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence per WP:GNG doesn’t qualify as well. Celestina007 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gotta love when YouTube is one of the only sources. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable singer who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article are not reliable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. YouTube, Napster and someone else's Wikipedia page are clearly not reliable sources. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:31, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Lei (snowboarder)

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

Claim that the individual is a professional snowboarder, but the link is dead. Nothing else in the article, apart from all the spam, suggests this person is infact notable at all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any coverage aside from a couple of press photos, and the fact that the only two editors ([5], [6]) who have contributed to the page content are both SPAs (and that one of them has a name which is suspiciously close to that of the subject) suggests that this is a promotional page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no significant coverage. I could only find the source in the article. Many of the statements made in the article are unsourced. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 07:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable snowboarder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable event. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence to show he meets WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:37, 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. Deceptive sock puppetry/double !voting is not OK at AFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Road of Love

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

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Does pass WP:NF The source of the film itself is available, This article is about a festival film that is currently on public display Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- None of the coverage is significant, they are all just listings that the film exists. Existence is not the same as Notability. And there is no independent coverage of the film at the festival. Again, just being in a festival (unless its a major major festival) does not signify notability. BOVINEBOY2008 11:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*-BOVINEBOY The coverage is remarkable for this film, The filmmaker is remarkable and the film itself has been remarkable in Iran Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Please provide citation. There are none in the article. BOVINEBOY2008 11:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

** BOVINEBOY There are citations in the article! Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - There is only one CITATION in the article, and it is IMDb, which should not be used as a source anyway per WP:CITEIMDB. There are EXTERNAL LINKS which are not citations, and they are all just database listing, not actually significant coverage. Can you provide an article that is covering the film? Like an interview from a credible source about the film or a review of the film? BOVINEBOY2008 16:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* BOVINEBOY IMDb is a resource, and other resources in the language of the country that made the film.Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- They are not independent sources that indicate notability though, please read WP:NFSOURCES carefully! BOVINEBOY2008 21:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* BOVINEBOY I read it,If the resources are low, there is no reason to delete the articleHoseinkhosravii (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. based on unreliable sources. @ Hoseinkhosravii you can NOT vote because you are the creator of this article. you can just comment. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is free to vote keep at AFD as per WP:AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

** Spada II ♪♫ As per nom , what do you repeat everywhere? Do you just want to delete all the articles?Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hoseinkhosravii: "per nom" means "in reference to" (per) + "the person who nominated the article" (nom). It's a piece of jargon which editors use in Deletion debates. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The references are accuracy and significantعلیرضا رضوی (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the film's IMDb page and a mirror site, the references are just video streaming sites. Nobody is saying that the film doesn't exist, but it doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I recommend that before people vote, they read WP:NFSOURCES so they can understand what would be required. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

**~dom Kaos~ But according to WP:NF, the resources are enough for the article and your opinion is the opposite, You should also consider the importance of the article in the country of origin Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - To quote WP:NF

Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database.

Bolding is mine for emphasis. BOVINEBOY2008 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* The movie database and its playback are complete and accurate.Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't signify notability though. Find an independent source that talks about the film. BOVINEBOY2008 21:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*The source is in the articleHoseinkhosravii (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable due to no significant coverage in reliable sources about this film. Hate to say it, but this looks like self-promotion per WP:PROMO. Just because a person exists and has made a film does not mean the person or the film is notable. We need notability to be established through secondary sources. Wikipedia does not lead the way in establishing notability; it follows sources that cover the topic significantly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*:Erik Coverage of resources in the article is available and sufficient, Its manufacturer is important in its workHoseinkhosravii (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no actual coverage available about the film. If by manufacturer you mean the director Danial Hajibarat, that subject is not notable either. The two topics cannot be played off of each other. Both topics need reliable sourcing, and there is none for this film nor its director. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Erik The sources for both articles are accurate and reliable, but because they are not in your language, you will not accept them. There are enough resourcesHoseinkhosravii (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC) * Keep was able to pass WP:NF Bidelirania (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bidelirania, your username matches the name of the company which produced this film, according to IMDb. In the interests of transparency, please could you confirm whether you have a Conflict of Interest? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* ~dom Kaos~ No,The similarity is in the name, This is a current name, It has nothing else Bidelirania (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bidelirania so you are telling us that you have no connection to the film company despite the fact that you have mostly only made edits to subjects that are incredibly close to the film company? Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references are reliable sources and most are just links to the trailer on different hosting sites. There is no significant, in-depth coverage at all, not from any major Iranian newspapers or any of its major news agencies. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: to the surprise of precisely nobody, Bidelirania and Hoseinkhosravii have both been perma-blocked for sock/meatpuppetry: see discussion Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bidelirania. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 05:03, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formula E in New York with Liv Tyler 2018

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

None of the cited "reliable" sources even mention this film. The only source that does mention the film, is the film itself. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: This article provides a synopsis of the film, which is on YouTube and has an IMDb page, but the reliable sources are still none the less relevant. The film in general, focuses on Liv Tyler's day at the 2018 New York City ePrix. You're seemingly not looking at the bigger picture here, so to speak. As illustrated in the sources, there were several news accounts online that reported on the appearances of celebrities like Liv Tyler at the New York City exPrix. Why do all of the sources have to literally and strictly be about a YouTube documentary, when that's only an accessory to the general story? It should be noted that Greg Williams himself, has his own Wikipedia article, so he himself and his films much have some relevance. Several of the photos that were taken from the film were soon presented on Williams' social media accounts, so it isn't like there isn't any sort of coverage of the film elsewhere. The film itself, must be legitimate if the names of the editor and producer were also featured alongside Greg Williams. It isn't like, we're not seeing a professionally made, directed, produced and edited documentary short. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2020

Delete. The subject of the documentary may or may not be notable, but the documentary film itself has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence that this film has received significant media coverage, as described at WP:NFSOURCES. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 minute films are not usually notable and this one has a lack of coverage such as no external reviews listed in imdb and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, so WP:GNG is not passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dreyden

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the two current references are a Paper Magazine interview and a permanent dead link. Mr. Dreyden's adult industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated; his mainstream acting roles do not appear to be significant. I looked for additional sources and found nothing useful; only an interview with Gay Star News labelled "sponsored"[7], another interview on the Drag Star Diva blog[8] (please note that both of these are somewhat NSFW) and a few niche-interest podcast interviews. Cheers, gnu 57 09:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 09:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 09:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 09:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The porn awards and nominations would not even have satisfied any recent understanding of WP:PORNBIO. Supplied and found RS coverage does not support the article's content, never mind claims of notability per WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 13 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) 10:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nwamiko Madden

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

Non notable actor, article uses only IMDB as a a source. Deprodded but no additional sources added since then. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since IMDb is not a reliable source, articles with that as the only source should be eligible for BLP prod. All the more so since to remove a BLP prod the article needs to have a reliable source added, which IMDb is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current rules for WP:BLPPROD exclude articles with an imdb link. There have been plenty of RFCs that have confirmed that policy and is it really so hard to do a WP:Before and if there are no good sources use a normal prod instead? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: While the subject has had some significant roles in Hatley High and 15/Love, the productions themselves don't appear to be all that notable. I basically drew a blank with finding sources, except for an article which simply states that he joined 15/Love halfway through the show's first season. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR #1 just because the article has a list of acting roles in it — even if you're going for "notable because he's been in stuff", he still has to have reliable sources to support an article with, and the existence of an IMDb profile is not a notability clincher in and of itself in the absence of any media coverage about him or his performances. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 15 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) 14:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kinney

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

Non notable actor with no sources other than IMDB. Deprodded but no additional sources have been added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the notability guidelines for actors. A bunch of guest appearances in television do not fit the definition of significant roles in major productions. The article itself admits his one recurring role was minor, so not significant. He is not notable. It is having such articles on minor figures that has nearly propelled us to 1 million articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The acting roles here are minor ones, not "significant" ones, for the purposes of WP:NACTOR #1 — and even if they were more significant than they are, merely adding a list of roles to an actor's BLP is not in and of itself an exemption from having to reliably source them: even the one show stated here that might genuinely bolster his case for inclusion, Inquiring Minds, is still not so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to have some real sources. But even on a ProQuest search, apart from a few glancing namechecks of his existence all I can find is accidental hits on people who are either definitely not, or at least not verifiable as, the same person as this. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm voting "Weak Keep" for the moment on the basis of a weak case for WP:NACTOR—supporting roles in Small Crimes and The Story of Luke, as well as a long-running but minor recurring role in Degrassi: The Next Generation and Degrassi: Next Class. However, I fully agree that sourcing is a problem. Thus far, I haven't found much more than mere mentions, and if neither I nor anybody else is able to come up with anything more substantial, I will likely downgrade my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:50, 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 no consensus. Cunard's sources are quite convincing and span a wide time range, addressing many of the WP:NOTNEWS concerns. Two people generally don't constitute a quorum for a decision in that direction though, and I don't see relisting as having a realistic possibility of resulting in deletion, so I am closing it now as no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program

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

WP:1E at best. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t think IE applies as this isn’t a biography. I also think there’s enough sourcing to pass GNG: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and others. Mccapra (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Absolutely non-notable; other than one event, solely run-of-the-mill coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 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 08:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly not notable for other than one event, and it's unlikely the exchange program's article has any likelihood to be expanded upon except by students or faculty involved after resources on the 2014 incident are exhausted. Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 01:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources for the article and the sources mentioned above are all either passing mentions of the program in books, or pertain to WP:NOTNEWS with coverage of the 2014 incident. Zoozaz1 talk 20:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

杨晴川 (2007-08-30). 杨牧 (ed.). "美国高中生喜欢到中国当"交换生"" [American high school students enjoy being "exchange students" in China]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
Colgan, Craig (April 2003). "Interest in International Studies is Back!". Education Digest. Vol. 68, no. 8. p. 63. ISSN 0013-127X.
Weingarten, Jane (1989-06-22). "Returning From China, Newton Student Keeps Flame". The Jewish Advocate.
Lythgoe, Dennis (1998-09-21). "Americans in China". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
Shartin, Emily (2000-11-12). "Students get oriented in Newton: Exchange with Chinese has long history". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
Carlock, Marty. (1985-05-12). "The study of Mandarin is on the upswing in high school: Americans respond enthusiastically to cultural exchanges" (pages 1 and 2). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18. – via Newspapers.com.
Coons, Phyllis (1987-01-04). "Newton students return from China exchange". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
Axelrod, Joan. (1986-11-30). "TV to feature Newton-Peking exchange" (pages 1 and 2). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
Scherer, Marge (2009). Challenging the Whole Child: Reflections on Best Practices in Learning, Teaching and Leadership. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 189–190. ISBN 978-1-4166-0893-6. Retrieved 2020-04-18.

Sources with quotes

杨晴川 (2007-08-30). 杨牧 (ed.). "美国高中生喜欢到中国当"交换生"" [American high school students enjoy being "exchange students" in China]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
The article notes:
1986年，马萨诸塞州牛顿公立学校根据与北京景山学校达成的协议，派出4名美方交换学生前往中国短期留学，由当时担任该校艺术教员的亨德森带队。
这是美国历史上首批赴华参加交换学生项目的高中生。当时，全美只有牛顿公立学校一家有此计划。而今，参加美中高中学生交换计划的学校已经遍布全美各州，仅马萨诸塞州就有20多家。每年赴中国交流的美国学生也已达到数百人的规模，而且正在不断增加。
...
2006年春天，邝女士和该校另一名教师带领9名12年级学生(相当于中国的高三学生)，在牛顿公立学校的姊妹学校———北京著名的景山学校度过了一段难忘的时光。作为交换学生，这些美国青少年吃住在中国人家里，与中国学生“同进同出”，对中国文化和中国人的生活有了最直接的接触。
From Google Translate:
In 1986, Massachusetts Newton Public School sent four American exchange students to study in China for a short period of time in accordance with the agreement reached with Beijing Jingshan School. Henderson, who was then the art teacher of the school, led the team.
These are the first high school students in American history to go to China to participate in exchange student programs. At the time, only the Newton Public Schools had the program. Today, schools participating in the U.S.-China high school student exchange program have spread throughout the states, with more than 20 in Massachusetts alone. The number of American students who go to China for exchange each year has also reached the scale of hundreds, and is constantly increasing.
...
In the spring of 2006, Ms. Kwong and another teacher of the school led 9 12th grade students (equivalent to senior high school students in China) to spend an unforgettable time at the sister school of Newton Public School, the famous Jingshan School in Beijing . As exchange students, these American teenagers eat and live in Chinese homes, and "go in and out with Chinese students", and have the most direct contact with Chinese culture and Chinese life.
Colgan, Craig (April 2003). "Interest in International Studies is Back!". Education Digest. Vol. 68, no. 8. p. 63. ISSN 0013-127X.
The article notes:
The oldest high school exchange program between the countries of the United States and China is still going strong. The Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program, which is based in the city of Newton, Massachusetts, works with private foundations and has raised an endowment which has kept the exchange operating since the year 1979.
Each fall, a group from China visits schools in Newton, and two Newton teachers and five students live with Chinese families. American teachers teach English while they are in China, and students attend classes in language, history, art, math, science, and martial arts, all in Chinese.
The exchange has inspired the Newton school system to make a strong commitment to teaching Chinese language, history, and culture. Students can study Mandarin as early as third grade and continue all the way through high school. Several school districts throughout Massachusetts have adopted similar programs, including Boston, Brockton, Brookline, Belmont, and Dover.
Weingarten, Jane (1989-06-22). "Returning From China, Newton Student Keeps Flame". The Jewish Advocate.
The article notes:
Tamar [Shay] was one of five students from Newton who spent this past semester at the Jingshan School in Beijing, and who lived with Chinese families while they studied and participated in daily Chinese life.
Although this group of students and the two Newton teachers who accompanied them knew their lives in China would be vastly different from what they had been used ot in suburban Boston, and commented on the initial shock of seeing their cramped quarters, adjusting to cold showers and 30-minute bike rides to and from school, these experiences became secondary when the students and teachers developed close bonds with their new friends and adopted families.
And for Tamar and others in the group, their attachment to the people they attended class with and lived with for four months had a profound effect on them, causing their emotions to "gain in volume, and ultimately led them to Tiananmen Square in May, where they marched along with the students who were seeking a more open, democratic society for China."
The article later notes:
"Not all students were behind the movement. In school, I sat two seats away from Deng Xiao Peng's granddaughter, who was a voice box, reflecting her family's view. She thought the students who led the action should be beheaded," Tamar says. But many of the government leaders have grandchildren who were involved.
Lythgoe, Dennis (1998-09-21). "Americans in China". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
The article notes:
That was the first jarring question one of his new Chinese high school students directed to American Peter Twomey when he reached the Jingshan Country School in northern Beijing.Despite its stark appearance, Jingshan is a boarding school for Chinese children from elite homes. It sits in quiet isolation on flat terrain in northern China. Despite its young age of two years, the school is dirty and plaster falls everywhere in the shabby interior.
...
Next, he contacted key people in the Newton, Mass., school system, to learn about their China exchange program. Surprisingly, Newton invited Twomey to be one of two teachers to go to China representing their city, and Brockton High granted him a four-month leave.
...
Just as the Chinese send students and teachers to Newton, the Americans send five Newton students, plus two teachers, to spend February to June in Beijing.
The major fear of Chinese officials is that students visiting America will defect. In exchange programs, the rate of Chinese defection is more than 50 percent. But since the Newton project was organized in 1985, they have never had a defection.
Shartin, Emily (2000-11-12). "Students get oriented in Newton: Exchange with Chinese has long history". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Over the past 21 years, Newton has maintained an exchange program with the Jingshan School, sending more than 30 students and 14 teachers to spend a semester in Beijing.
In return, 38 Jingshan students, including Li and five others who are here now, have spent time taking classes and sampling life in the Newton schools.
The Jingshan students, who are visiting Washington, D.C., this weekend will meet with US Secretary of Education Richard Riley and Chinese Minister of Education Chen Zhili tomorrow.
Those involved with the Newton-Beijing program say it was among the first to offer an up-close look at a foreign culture by insisting that participants stay in private homes. They are pleased that federal officials have taken an interest in the opportunity they've been offering students since 1978.
...
Many of the exchange program's major expenses are covered: Participants with host families, students pay for their own airfare, and the School Department pays to hire two substitute teachers to fill in for those who leave.
Carlock, Marty. (1985-05-12). "The study of Mandarin is on the upswing in high school: Americans respond enthusiastically to cultural exchanges" (pages 1 and 2). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18. – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
The student exchange program between Newton South High School and a secondary school in Beijing (Peking) will get under way next year. "So far as we know, this is one of the first, perhaps the first, in the country," says Elizabeth A. Quinn, director of secondary education for Newton schools.
Like many US–Chinese relationships, the Newton exchange grew out of personal friendship. Special education teacher Claire Kanter accompanied her husband on a business trip to China in 1979. There, she met Fang Bi Hui, a teacher of English at Jingshan School in Beijing and author of English-instruction textbooks.
...
Kanter and Fang Bi Hui compared notes for hours, rapidly became friends and proposed that their two schools initiate an ongoing relationship. A delegation of Newton teachers and administrators followed up with a formal vist to their counterparts in Beijing the next year; in 1983, Jingshan School reciprocated by sending four staff members to Newton South.
Invited back last fall, Supt. John M. Strand agreed to go, provided Jingshan School would lay the groundwork for a student-teacher exchange. Jingshan officials have now confirmed the plans, and, next fall, four high school students and two English-speaking teachers will live with Newton host families and attend Newton South for a semester. Newton students will then go to Jingshan for a semester.
Coons, Phyllis (1987-01-04). "Newton students return from China exchange". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Jill Shapiro, a Newton North senior, and two English teachers, Mary Doolin and Carolyn Henderson, made up the group that also spent three and a half months at the Jingshan School, a Chinese public high school. The unprecedented exchange came out of a vacation trip to China in 1979 by Claire Kanter, a Newton special education teacher, who developed the idea with Fan Bi Hui, a teacher of English at the Jingshan. The Chinese school sent three students to spend a semester in Newton schools last year and to live with American families.
Students from Newton North and Newton South high schools were chosen to return the visit by submitting essays and by recommendations from their language teachers, said John Strand, superintendent of schools in Newton. They studied Chinese at school and took intensive summer courses at Harvard.
...
The level of classes at Jingshan is similar to that in Newton, students said. Chinese students spend three years, six days a week, in high school, majoring in science or liberal arts, and also studying history, geography, math, politics, chemistry, literature and music.
Axelrod, Joan. (1986-11-30). "TV to feature Newton-Peking exchange" (pages 1 and 2). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
The article notes:
This was one of the cultural revelations that is taking place as part of a pioneering exchange program between high schools in Newton and Peking. The exchange, touted as the first of its kind between a Chinese and an American public school, is the subject of a documentary called "The Beijing Mirror" made by producer Carol Ratney of the Newton Television Foundation. (Beijing is another spelling for Peking.) The film, which tells about the stay of Wang Hua and two of his classmates in Newton last year, will air Dec. 13 at 9:30 p.m. on Channel 44.
The Chinese exchange students have returned to China, and four Newton high school students, accompanied by two teachers, currently are studying in Peking. ...
...
The cultural exchange was the brainchild of Claire Kanter, a special education coordinator, who accompanied her husband, an accountant, on a business trip to Peking in 1979. There she met a Chinese woman who taught English, and, after years of planning an exchange program with the Jingshan School in Peking began to take shape.
Scherer, Marge (2009). Challenging the Whole Child: Reflections on Best Practices in Learning, Teaching and Leadership. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 189–190. ISBN 978-1-4166-0893-6. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
The book notes:
Two public high schools in Newton, Massachusetts—Newton North and Newton South—run an exchange program with the Jingshan School in Beijing, China. Created by two teachers in 1979, the exchange enables U.S. and Chinese teachers and students to spend time in one another’s schools every year. The program has served as a catalyst for districtwide curriculum change, bringing the study of Asian cultures into various academic disciplines, from social studies to science, and adding Chinese to the district’s broad array of language options. The leaders of this exchange now help schools around the United States develop exchange programs with China as a way to internationalize their curriculums.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The incident referenced by editors above happened in 2014: "Newton North High School senior Henry DeGroot was visiting a school outside Beijing on a semester abroad this year when he decided to have some fun and also make a point by writing prodemocracy messages in the notebook of a Chinese student."
The sources I have found were published in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2009. The exchange program has received sustained significant coverage in reliable sources.
The sources include a Xinhua News Agency article, an Education Digest article, a Deseret News article, an article in The Jewish Advocate, and multiple articles in The Boston Globe.
The Xinhua News Agency article said that Newton students were "the first high school students in American history to go to China to participate in exchange student programs. At the time, only the Newton Public Schools had the program." The Education Digest says, that the "Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program" is "[t]he oldest high school exchange program between the countries of the United States and China [and] is still going strong".
A 1989 article in The Jewish Advocate notes that Newton student Tamar Shay while participating in the exchange program at Jingshan marched in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in May "with the [Chinese] students who were seeking a more open, democratic society for China". Shay notes, "Not all students were behind the movement. In school, I sat two seats away from Deng Xiao Peng's granddaughter, who was a voice box, reflecting her family's view. She thought the students who led the action should be beheaded".
A 1998 article in the Deseret News noted, "The major fear of Chinese officials is that students visiting America will defect. In exchange programs, the rate of Chinese defection is more than 50 percent. But since the Newton project was organized in 1985, they have never had a defection."
Reliable sources have provided substantial coverage of the Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program, including noting that it is the first and oldest student exchange program between America and China. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:15, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. McCreight

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. High-level NFL executive who has not yet been a general manager and no other claims to notability. It is rare for non-GM executives to receive significant enough coverage to pass GNG. This is his most up-to-date bio for reference as the article is hard to read. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a football player... Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find four potential sources from credible publications pretty easily (1 2 3 4), although I will say he only meets one's looser definition of WP:GNG, and the argument for deletion is strong. Personally, I think this page just needs cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitpoint0213 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 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 08:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Based on sources provided above, subject meets WP:N. Could use some cleaning up. GrangerShots (talk) 14:49, 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. There is consensus to keep the article on the means that the article passes WP:MUSIC. However, there is still promotional material that may needs cleanup. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 16:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eryn Shewell

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

No sources of any note, no notability, page is full of filler and promo. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. Eryn Shewell has received coverage in major music publications as well as regional newspapers. There may be more about her in press by now. She has been touring internationally. I will check.Lhcollins (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any sources in major music publications, by all means do. A quick Google search comes up with nothing rather than very specific regional newspapers. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There were sources for most of the awards already. They were just in a different part of the text. The newspapers and music magazines listed are RS. She has won numerous awards and performed with the best. I went into my university's database and there are actually more articles there, but I stuck to what needed sourcing.Lhcollins (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The blues scene is more low key than mainstream rock which is something to consider.
Comment regional newspapers are reliable sources, mainstream music publications are not necessary to establish notability, they just are often used in articles related to the music industry.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I would say let`s delete the article.Wikirapguru (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as regional newspapers and as she has been entered into the NY and New Jersey Blues Hall of Fame that would be a claim to pass WP:MUSIC criteria 7: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" (only one criteria needed), in addition to passing WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 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 08:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Coverage by local and regional publications is one thing, but I'm still wary about how incredibly promotional and generally unsourced the article is right now. However, even if the page gets turned into a stub or otherwise severely pruned, I'm inclined to think that it's worth keeping given the persuasive arguments of the above user. The artist appears to be a key member of the blues scene in her particular area. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:12, 20 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lauren Bruce

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. She is only known for having unprotected sex with a notable American actor Charlie Sheen, who has HIV. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Nope! I can’t see general notability guidelines being met in any which way. Celestina007 (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to meet WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources amount to tabloids and gossip. People do not become notable for dating notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, virtually no significant coverage outside of the single event mentioned by the nominator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:47, 15 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Divine Look Clinic

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

The result was delete. The independent and reliable aspects of the sourcing have not been successfully challenged. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaga Baby

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

subject fails WP:NMUSIC and no indepdnent reliable source found to indicate subject pass WP:N Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article are reliable. I did a Google search and could not find any coverage of him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a member of the Wikipedia community for over 10 years. I have made many contributions over those 10 years. With regard to the Vaga Baby article, there are several reliable sources cited. Apple, Amazon, and iHeartRadio are a few of the sources that were used. These sources view Vaga Baby as a notable celebrity. It would not be fair or reasonable to delete an article that contains citations from the aforementioned sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno31 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techno31 You sent me a message on my talk page and also you have commented the same here, I understand your disagreement as the creator of the page and since this AfD is the right venue, I reply you here. Apple, Amazon, and iHeartRadio are all not independent sources, as they are related to the subject for playing their songs. In Wikipedia, for a subject to be notable, first the subject needs to be qualified/passed the notability guidelines or WP:NMUSIC for a musician/signer/band. Secondly, the content needs to be supported by significant coverage by independent, reliable sources such as from the newspaper or books, where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not passing mentioned. In a nutshell pls see WP:42. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WOW the bluedgeon is real out here. But yeah basically what Versace1608 said, I don’t see WP:MUSICBIO being satisfied here neither do I see subject of article having in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them so gng isn’t met either, so yeah a stand alone article isn’t warranted at the moment. Sorry. Celestina007 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - I will need a few more days to add the references. I am looking for them now.*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno31 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WorldStarHipHop and Worldwide Spotlight are valid sources that have been cited in a multitude of articles on Wikipedia. I have been a part of the Wikipedia community for over 10 years. I have read over WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO a myriad of times over the past 10 years. I do not simply create articles on a whim. Vaga Baby meets the following criterion:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).

It is required that the artist meet only one of the the criterion listed within WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Vaga Baby meets several.

I will post more references shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno31 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will need a few more days to get the article updated with more references. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno31 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me the chance to revise the article. I added a new reference to the page. I cited an article from MarketWatch.^[1] This adds to the fact that this article is suitable for Wikipedia.

Delete - Every source in the article as it is right now doesn't seem able to prove notability (as stated above, the likes of Apple are in it to sell things and not to provide reliable information). The article from MarketWatch in particular is a press release. Even if it was a standard news report, it wouldn't be appropriate to build a whole page from a single source, especially one that doesn't go into that much detail. The artist just doesn't appear to be notable, and so deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are the issue, I can cite a few more. Because this is a new article, I assumed that more information and sources could be added later on. Nevertheless, I will add a few more sources. I will need a day or two to sit down in front of the computer and add these. Thanks for reviewing. Techno31 (talk)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a blatant copyright infringement. Michig (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Brothers (band)

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

This article have been copied and pasted from (https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-soul-brothers-mn0000044338/biography), possibly in violation of Wikipedia:Copyright policy Amkgp (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So why bring it to AfD when you've already quite correctly added a tag for speedy deletion on the article. --Michig (talk) 08:42, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Violet Stones (band)

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

Subject has yet to meet WP:NMUSIC to merit a page in Wikipedia mainspace. WP:TOOSOON Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is a close call, but I must agree that it is too soon for this band. They have gotten some early and brief mentions in the Australian alt-rock press ([9], [10]), but I don't think this achieves the "significant coverage" requirements at WP:NBAND. Their notability may improve if their recent debut album get any notice beyond the specialty press. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doomsdayer520’s comment is thoughtful and compelling. Woerich (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources Doomsdayer linked are fairly short, but IMO they meet NMUSIC's standard of being "non-trivial." I'm not quite so sure that they're reliable, though—they're fairly obscure sources, but they do seem to be well-run operations with full-time people behind them. Also, if this is kept, it should be moved to The Violet Stones (there's nothing to disambiguate it from). Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This is, as stated above, somewhat of a close call. The group has received a bit of attention. That's important, to an extent, but then we still don't have enough coverage to really build a page. I'm not sure, but deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:34, 15 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 Greenlee County, Arizona. Sandstein 07:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strayhorse, Arizona

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

As best I can determine, "Strayhorse" was originally the name applied to the whole canyon. There is a campground (which also shows up on the topos) which is far and away the most common reference to the placename. There was also, once, a sawmill in the area, and there are a couple of buildings, about half a mile from each other and back in the woods, whihc are also on the topos. One is definitely a ranch, and the other is unclear. But again, I cannot find anything testifying to this as a settlement: every reference is consistent with it being thought of as a general locale. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is also Strayhorse creek, which I believe is a tributary of Blue River (Arizona), but it's not mentioned there. I found some newspaper articles that refer to Strayhorse as a place, such as "Fall has arrived at Strayhorse" [11], and "Elk concentrated below rim between Rose peak and Strayhorse" [12]. It's not mentioned in U.S. Route 191 which is the road through the area either. I think a redirect would be useful if someone was trying to find this place, so adding a mention in Greenlee County, Arizona is probably the best target. MB 04:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect It's definitely a local landmark, but there's no sign of a community here and not enough coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 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) b uidhe 09:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Theatre Comique

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

I nominated this article for deletion temporarily, until I realized that this article was previously a redirect, so I reverted to the version of the redirect and requested that the deletion discussion be itself deleted. However, this reversion was undone, so it seems like this article is being nominated for deletion after all. For one, the lead is directly copied from Church of the Messiah (Manhattan), and the only additional content is a list of previous names and managers which breaks WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. All in all, the theater does not appear to be notable, and I suggest redirecting this article back to "Church of the Messiah (Manhattan)]], which was the previous name of this building before it was converted into a theater. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. I think a redirect to the church article is plenty good enough here. The long list of managers is certainly not noteworthy; some (most?) of them never even produced a show there. As far as I can tell, the theatre never hosted a production that had a substantial run, and the only really interesting thing about it, which is not even mentioned in the article, is that Harrigan and Hart owned or leased it for the last three years before it burnt down, but as far as I can tell from IBDB, although they refurbished it, they never produced a show there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's sigcov here and here, and here, for instance. There's some level of coverage in the NYT (here and here). Given the variety of names and long history that the theatre had, it's not a happy redirect/merge to the questionably named Church of the Messiah (Manhattan) because of the multiple buildings/locations of that congregation. Plus it interlinks a bunch of bluelinks, which means that there appears to be loads of useful fragments of information in multiple biographical sources. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The redirect to the Church of the Messiah is questionable because the target article is about the congregation, not this specific building, and there appear to be enough sources about the building to establish its basic notability. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 23 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. Sandstein 07:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Thicket, Delaware

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

Lots of GNIS crap in Delaware too. This was a forest that burned down in 1906, not a community. Does not appear on topo because it doesn't exist, was on 1915 topo as physical feature like landings and wharves. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable place with no significant coverage. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 04:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thickets are not presumed to be notable, and this one has no significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep : On the web, it does have some presence. - Mew-o.o-Mew (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific websites would you use to establish notability? The first ten Google results [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] appear to be automated sites that use the GNIS database for location data; I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 19:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment stricken as it was made by a sockpuppet (LTA). --MrClog (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable place with no significant coverage. Fails WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be just a small forest. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PointComm (talk) 17:08, 16 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 is clear following relisting. BD2412 T 04:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheba.xyz

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

I have to say the same thing as Ammarpad said last time: basically advertising of non notable new business. It fails the substance of WP:NCORP criterion. Didn't change much from last time. I didn't found anything notable. Most of are basically advertising news. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to satisfy criteria provided in WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. A modest search shows me at least two reliable sources with indepth coverage, [23], [24]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 21:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON perhaps? The article might reach notability some day, going by the fact that at least two good sources exist, but not enough for right now. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON and most of the news are corporate routine coverage. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article creator can demonstrate that it is used by a significant proportion of the Bangladeshi population. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 11:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cited sources are press releases and churnalism. --MarioGom (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find enough coverage by reliable sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:04, 25 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.

^ MarketWatch (2020-04-13), Florida Artist, Vaga Baby is Keeping Calm During the Pandemic

[1] MarketWatch (2020-04-13), Florida Artist, Vaga Baby is Keeping Calm During the Pandemic

[1]