Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 May	27 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Consensus indicates that the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Kumar Tripathi

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

non notable physicist. Fails WP:GNG KST981 (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive#26 May 2020 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 30 year Professor of one of the top IITs in India, IIT Delhi. Abundant coverage like Telegraph, Times of India, National Herald India, Daily Jang Pakistan. Normally satisfies GNG. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hesides the GNG claims above, the subject also has 11 published papers with over 100 citations each (Google Scholar). Clear pass of WP:NPROF. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21, link? I am getting a result for one with a total of 100 citations. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: I used this search, assuming that the Vijai K Tripathi whose papers were also on plasma physics was the same person. Looking at this though, that appears to have been erroneous. There are still multiple there that appear to be this VK Tripathi though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG--Irshadpp (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1, many highly cited publications on Google Scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From above, it seems I didn't miss anything from my analysis, so here it is. In an academic capacity, the subject appears to have at least 100 total citations, no more than 300 at the most. So, I don't think that's quite enough for "Keep" on citations alone. Having been a professor of a top Indian institution is, frankly, a stronger indication of some notability, which is, however, unlikely to translate to lasting notability (as with most biographies on Wikipedia, to be fair). This fact also is likely the reason the media took notice of him when he ventured into political activism. As an intellectual going against the tide on contentious political issue/s, he seems to have garnered enough coverage to suggest he is quite close to reaching the WP:GNG threshold if he isn't there already. The article needs to make clear that he's a professor who's ventured into activism and that's what makes him notable. And care needs to be taken not to attribute academic achievements of others sharing the combination of "V", "VK" and "Tripathi" in their names to him. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: This article alone has 411 citations from the Google Scholar link above, and this one has 198 citations per GS. There’s no mistake about authorship for either, from the journal websites. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkH21, hmm... I must've found some other Tripathi, again. This gives a count of 4017. I unstress my point about low academic citations, move that to stress on identifying exactly his and no one else's, from reliable sources, while editing the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) the nominator has been blocked as a sock and was the only delete vote.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noor Alam Khalil Amini

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

Non notable scholar, No independent reliable resources. Fails WP:GNG KST981 (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Numan765 (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive#26 May 2020 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep — The subject of the the article has been awarded with Presidential Honour, and is subject of a doctoral degree, his book is part of madrasa curricula. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 09:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man satisfies WP:GNG criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Clear consensus that the article passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ababeel (NGO)

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

Resources are not independent reliable. Self Published. Fails WP:ORG KST981 (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive#26 May 2020 -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to clean it up a bit. But I agree that this organisation does not satisfy WP:GNG criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I am satisfied by GorgeCustersSabre's argument. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I change my vote to keep. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:GNG is clearly satisfied by the following sources (with at least 1 paragraph about the NGO): The Indian Express, The Kashmir Monitor, Greater Kashmir, Two Circles, News18. Did the nominator or other editors here attempt a WP:BEFORE search? Notability isn’t based solely on references already in the article (although some of these were already in the article anyways). — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is about organization, which I started is notable because many reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Kashmir Monitor, Greater Kashmir, Two Circles, News18 and many more sources available online are specially about the organization. So WP:GNG is clearly satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChunky (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable organization with many reliable references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ^(talk) 13:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 05:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Botswana

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Unsourced. It has become an indiscriminate list, including primary and even pre-primary schools. There are very few entries with associated Wikipedia articles, (16, excluding links to the town that a school is in) so I am not sure what value the list would have if it only contained bluelinked schools. The purpose is better served by the "Schools in Botswana" category. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator on reflection, this should be cleaned up rather than deleted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, standard index of things by country. 16 is plenty to merit a stand-alone list; all else are issues for cleanup, not deletion. See also WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per postdlf -- clearly a notable index for any given country, Sadads (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided all non notable entries are cleared. Ajf773 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not sure we are going to establish a clear consensus here at this time Fenix down (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pappu Hossain

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no international caps yet = too soon for an article. Giant Snowman 18:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the big problem with this article, doesn't appear to be notability, it's that it's dreadfully formatted, and references are broken. I'm working on fixing the existing references, and adding more to demonstrate GNG. Can we hold off closing the AFD until I've finished. Nfitz (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extending for one week while editor attemps to fix article to show GNG. No overwhelming consensus to delete, so no harm doing this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having digging further into this, I'm torn. I've found one good article for GNG here. But just one. Have I missed something? Everything else is routine. Meanwhile, he's arguably one of the best goalkeepers in a not quite fully professional league - but the top league in his country - so doesn't quite meet NFOOTBALL. And he's been called up to the national team recently - but no cap (which lead to the one GNG reference) - so again doesn't quite meet NFOOTBALL. One would assume he'd get a national team cap soon - but he's a goalkeeper ... Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:FOOTYN, the player is playing the national premier league and also a possibility to play in the continental tournament. 11:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly does not meet NFOOTY, despite what unsigned comment above says. Why was it even relisted? --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The standard for NFooty User:Drat8sub is that the league is fully-professional (and fully-professional leagues are listed at WP:FPL. The source there suggests otherwise, though in terms of professionality, it's talking about scheduling and communications - which aren't really criteria. The criteria is that the players on all teams are full-time paid players. I've always been somewhat suspicious that the teams may actually be fully-professional given the number of foreign players that some teams employ. Do you have references that support them being fully-professional? Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - BlameRuiner, my bad, face palm indeed, didn't sign. Nfitz,as the other article I want to bring your notice again that WP:FPL has listed the leagues, no doubt, but the most important part of the whole project, i.e, "what is a fully professional league?", is not defined, so I am skeptical on what criteria the leagues are lsited. And along with that, this article shows the clubs are paying or trying to pay the salary in pandemic also. So, I don't know if they are not professional clubs why would they think of paying salary in a pandemic. Drat8sub (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Drat8sub I mentioned the criteria above - "the players on all teams are full-time paid players". i.e. they don't have other jobs on the side. Are there references that support this? Nfitz (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Drat8sub, also, I refer you to WP:NFOOTY rather than the long-superceded WP:FOOTYN. The reference you've shown primarily discusses pay to foreign players. It doesn't indicate the magnitude of payment. One measure of whether the league is fully professional, would be what is the 20th highest player on the lowest performing teams paid? I've no doubt the highest-paid player is indeed fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = fails NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ah, I finally figured out what I was missing. The name listed in this article is Pappu Hossain (পাপ্পু হোসাইন), but his full name appears to be Mohamed Pappu Hossain, and Bengali media often refer to him as Pappu Ahmed (পাপ্পু আহমেদ). Searching for that, rather than পাপ্পু হোসাইন gives hundreds of hits, rather than a dozen or so. And GNG is met with (https://www.prothomalo.com/sports/article/1614775 one), and (https://priyo.com/e/1150550 two). Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz. The article's subject meets the notability guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia. CJK09 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments for keeping are exactly on point, as this subject clearly and unambiguously meets the relevant inclusion criteria, which is WP:NPOL. BD2412 T 04:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Poptodorova

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

Foreign Ministry service is almost entirely the same as the website [1]. Member of the National Parliament is almost the same as [2] Nadzik (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC) . I was thinking that I should just delete the copyrighted fragments, but that would leave less than half of the article. I know that Ambassador Poptodorova definitely belongs to Wikipedia, but the format of this article brakes our rules. Please discuss Nadzik (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep members of national parliaments are default notable, we are never going to delete this article. Feel free to edit out copyright violations and the like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Copyright problems can be dealt with by editing, and even revision deleted out of the visible edit history if necessary — so they're not necessarily grounds to delete an article about an NPOL-passing politician, since the article can very easily just be rewritten. There are sometimes contexts where the best way to deal with a copyright violation can indeed be to delete it and then restart it from scratch — but a situation where removing the copyright problem erases half the article isn't one of those, because the other half of the article is still there. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a member of national parliament the subject is notable as a default Alexdlp10 (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nadzik: what exactly is the copyvio concern? This looks like it has been translated from the Bulgarian. SportingFlyer T·C 07:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Samsung India Software Centre. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung R&D Institute India, Noida

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

Promotional piece of a non-notable company that lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 08:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 08:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meger with Samsung India Software Centre. - Hatchens (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Raphel High

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

Notability per WP:AUTHOR seems doubtful. All references in the article are either her personal website, or online bookstores. The article's main contributor, K.yardena, is a single-purpose account. All in all too many red flags to ignore. bender235 (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment looks like a partial copy-paste from: https://web.archive.org/web/20160407090252/http://www.moniqueraphelhigh.com/about-monique/ DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, point 3 of WP:NAUTHOR requires significant/well known work(s) that have been independently reviewed, library holdings of High's books (allbeit including ebooks), although first published in the 1980s, number in the 100s ie. The Four Winds of Heaven - 240 libraries, Encore - 160 libraries, The Eleventh Year - 150 libraries, The Keeper of the Walls - 200 libraries, Thy Father's House - 130 libraries, Between Two Worlds - 130 libraries, also, there are reviews by Kirkus of The Four Winds of Heaven, Encore, The Eleventh Year, The Keeper of the Walls, Thy Father's House, by Publishers Weekly Between Two Worlds, Thy Father's House. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 14:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' She is notable, and one of the book is well read. I've removed a chunk of the article due to copyvio. scope_creep^Talk 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although "merge" has a clear majority, the arguments in favor of merging (or deleting) appear rather perfunctory and most are mere votes, which leads me to conclude that there's no policy-informed rough consensus yet. If discussed further on the talk page, the merger proposal could, however, still find consensus. Sandstein 17:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad de Chile Center for Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies

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

individual single-university academic institutes of this sort are not usually considered notable in Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 11:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University of Chile which can be done without bringing this to AfD, unless there’s some reason why that won’t work? Mccapra (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above Dronebogus (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm the article's creator. I didn't know single-university academic institutes of this sort are not usually considered notable in Wikipedia. I confused Dumbarton Oaks with an university. However, besides I was planned to create Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso (PUCV) Roman Studies Week. The reason why I created that Study Journal, in first place was linked to Héctor Herrera Cajas (founder of PUCV Roman Studies Week) and, in second place, due to its existence in Wikipedia in Spanish (according the policy of contribute with translation), reason why also I created Miguel Castillo Didier.

This article creation hasn't as goal its only one existence, but to contribute with Chilean culture's conextion and expantion in that Wikipedia. As article's deletion table says, I really want to contribute and want to do it since the own academic production of Universidad de Chile Center for Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies researchers have done, but I don't have all the time in the world (precisely I study at university).Carigval.97 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge and redirect to University of Chile. desmay (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction was to Merge as suggested. This is what is appropriate for the research programme of one academic probably with successive doctoral research students. However, this has rather more substance to it, so that we might treat it in a similar way to a named professorial post. Having said that much if it is a horrid article, far too much focused on the doctoral thesis of its second professor. Keep but prune. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many cases where individual institutes linked to universities have articles. The article seem well-written and source and I see so far no argument for removing this as an independent article. There just some vague appeals to tradition "academic institutes of this sort are not usually considered notable in Wikipedia". That is not argument enought to merge or delete this article. Dentren | ^Talk 07:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Chile. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's consensus here that the requirements of the relevant notability guidelines aren't met with sourcing. ~ mazca ^talk 14:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kent

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Can't find much coverage outside of routine transactional news (hirings, firings, etc.) and this coach's highest position has been as a position coach in the CFL. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm having a hard time differentiating all the possible candidates based on the noise in online searches. As the article is written, I'm going with delete but I wouldn't be opposed to additional sources or commentary if it were to be presented. "Userfy" would be an acceptable option if any editor is particularly enthusiastic about additional research and development.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment a non-notable football coach, but I don't see why he should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdlp10 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable football coach, possible COI as it's written a little bit close to the subject as well (college degrees). SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mezhür Higher Secondary School

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

~~non notable school. no mention in any Rs MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL Spiderone 10:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep. This article can surely be improved. There are some coverage on media and it is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that it is a notable school in Nagaland. Anonymousme (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admin - Keep vote is from article creator Spiderone 20:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sock's claim that there is "no mention in any RS" is highly misleading. See [3][4][5]. I understand these sources are pretty far from significant coverage but you should note that the school was known as "Kohima English School", until recently. For older name you can find significant coverage in multiple sources. [6],[7],[8] Lorstaking 03:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) the nominator has been blocked as a sock and was the only delete vote.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ministers' Hill Baptist Higher Secondary School

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

~~Local school, nothing in any RS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please keep. This article can surely be improved. There are some coverage on media and it is generally more difficult to source an article from a remoter part of the world, and the fact that it is a notable school in Nagaland. Anonymousme (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the argument for deletion is weak. Gumlau (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable -- we keep this kind of information for secondary schools in all corners of the world, Sadads (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments on sourcing were by assertion and were refuted by detailed discussion of sources by the delete side Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Pensworth Reagor

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

This article is mostly built off one source. The TCU Magazine source is a student publication. The Reagor Lynn Method has coverage from Lockheed Martin press releases and not much else. The subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Kbabej (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. As a program that honors less than 1% of the Lockheed technical staff [9] the Lockheed Technical Fellow honor appears to be close to the sort of thing we count for WP:PROF#C3, although obviously not in as academic a context. And in being based on the Agnes Scott College profile and the TCU magazine piece, the article has a plausible case for the multiple in-depth sources required by WP:GNG, but independence is dubious in both cases because of her alumna status. There's also a little more coverage at [10] and [11] but as a blog post and a press release from her employer they don't much strengthen the case for GNG. This source is a little better. And this one is primary for the award she won, but independent of her almae matres and employer. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see the relationship to WP:PROF as her research has made a significant impact to fuzzy logic as seen in her award from the WIA. I believe that if fuzzy logic meets WP:GNG then her connection to the topic through awards shows a notable status. Any coverage which is dubious is really support via WP:PSTS to the core connections to her notability. The WIA award was presented to her from the Associate Director of Technology for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.^[1] Bioforce12 (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOCKSTRIKE; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Milesr3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.womeninaerospace.org/events/gallery/2005awards.html

Weak delete. Notability is not inherited from that of fuzzy logic. The method that she invented has little coverage, and what little there is is incidental. I'm uncertain whether internal company award (even from a company as big as Lockheed Martin) is more like WP:NPROF C3 or C5. Whichever, the case is weak, and should be supported by some evidence of impact. I don't see much mention of the Lynn Reagor method outside of profiles of the subject; Datascape is harder to search for, but I didn't find anything. I'm watching this AfD in case better evidence of notability is uncovered. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be known only in-company. GS cites don't come to much. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There is a couple of uni articles on her, there is a gbook ref, magazine ref and I think there is probably more if a deep search is done. I think passes WP:THREE, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless winning the annual Outstanding Achievement Award from the Women in Aerospace organization grants notability on its own, I'm not seeing how she's notable. The university articles and Lockheed awards are not independent and the only other thing mentioned is that award. She has only a few citations in Google Scholar. I'll wait to vote until others have had a chance to enlighten me. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm thinking along the same lines as Papaursa, but verging towards a weak delete. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did another search for sources and I still couldn't find significant independent coverage that shows me that she meets WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. She definitely fails to meet WP:NPROF and I don't believe her award is sufficient to confer automatic notability. All independent coverage is related to the one award (WP:BIO1E). Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that Lockheed Martin Fellows were one of the classes of people used to seed the initial class of SIAM fellows.[12] (She apparently wasn't a SIAM member, so isn't a fellow, but otherwise would be.) This supports David Eppstein's WP:NPROF C3 very weak keep argument. I'm not persuaded by this in the near absence of evidence for C1 (which C3 is supposed to be a shortcut for), but perhaps others will be. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I agree with most comments above that the question of whether she passes any particular notability guideline is borderline, but unlike most BLPs in that situation there is clearly enough sourcing out there to write a good short biography. And that's what the article is: a short biography whose deletion would not improve the encyclopedia in any identifiable way. Since I should probably hang some WP:JARGON on this argument, I am saying that I agree with scope_creep that the sourcing here meets WP:SIGCOV. --JBL (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please show me the significant independent coverage of her that is besides her award (hence my mention of BIO1E)? I'm willing to change my vote, but I'd like someone to show me the coverage required to show notability. I find an unsupported claim that "there is clearly enough sourcing out there to write a good short biography" unconvincing and not part of any WP notability criteria. WP:ILIKEIT is not enough of an argument for me. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This was surprisingly difficult to close. Only the creator and WP:SPA Needyhaux wants to keep this article, but they do not tell us which sources now supposedly make this film notable. Pyxis Solitary goes off on a tangent about the great wrongs of Wikipedia, but expresses no opinion on the merits, and neither does Flori4nK. On this basis, I initially thought that I couldn't fault the conclusion that everybody else comes to: that the sourcing is insufficient for an article. But after looking at it more closely, the article does now have a number of sources that may well be "tiny local news sites", but may also not be, and they merit more discussion than they have been given here. As such, I don't think that this AfD provides us with a sufficiently informed "delete" consensus - but a second discussion might well do that. Sandstein 17:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summer of Mesa

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

Article about YouTube-only film, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- films need to show some evidence of their significance, such as noteworthy film awards and/or non-trivial attention from film critics. But this cites no media coverage at all, and even a Google search turns up no viable sources either: it only turns up databases and primary sources, not notability-supporting media. According to this article the film is still a few weeks away from its release, so no prejudice against recreation at a later date if its sourceability improves -- but if sources don't already exist yet, then a Wikipedia article isn't allowed to exist yet either. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable YouTube film. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See below (previously del per nom). - Flori4nKT A L K 20:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put delete on hold for 72 hours. The article was created on 19:05, 9 May 2020‎‎ -- one hour before this request for deletion was initiated. It's an upcoming film. There have been and are articles about upcoming films that have not received the kick in the ass that this one has. The editor who created the article is a noob and obviously isn't 100% familiar with all the requirements for creating Wikipedia articles. He/she should be given 72 hours to add reliable sources. If they have not been added after the 72 hours have passed, then, yes, delete it. (It's distasteful how steam hammers are so zealously brought down on articles when there's nothing offensive about them to warrant such a response. No wonder so many people won't contribute to Wikipedia, and so many other say F-it and leave.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that AFD discussions have to be kept open for at least a full week, right? That means that nobody needs any special 72-hour suspensions of process, because the normal process already gives them more than 72 hours to attempt to fix the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pyxis Solitary, for your extremely kind and understanding point of view. You expressing that sentiment touches me and puts this at-first disheartening experience into a positive one. I also now completely understand and respect the citation rules of Wikipedia that I was not fully aware of. I want to fully abide by them. I had emailed a producer of the film yesterday afternoon after seeing this and they told me the following publications are coming out with articles within the next few weeks: Windy City Media Group (Chicago LGBT publication), Cape Cod Times, Boston Spirit Magazine, Bay Area Reporter and CapeNews to name a few. Will those sources be reliable? Furthermore, is it possible for the article to be hidden until I am able to cite these sources properly, instead of fully deleting and re-entering this information? I respect your decision and appreciate the time given to help better this article. I am a very strong proponent and fan of all inclusive and queer representation, especially those that feature people of color in leading roles. That is limited in media even today, so please forgive me for jumping the gun and wanting to further legitimize a project that I know will comfort so many LGBT youth before the right sources are made available. I now fully understand. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needyhaux (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, you should copy the article and save it in your Sandbox. Bay Area Reporter, Cape Cod Times, and Windy City Times are reliable sources and have Wikipedia articles. Boston Spirit and CapeNews.net (owned by The Enterpise) don't have WP articles, but they are acceptable sources. However, even though it is a film article, other than for WGA credits and MPAA ratings you cannot use IMDb as a reliable source because it's loaded with user-generated content and considered questionable. Take a look at this recently-created film article stub so that you get an idea of how to start one without encountering hassles. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have gone ahead and done so. I tremendously appreciate you verifying those sources, and clarifying about IMDb. I look forward to adding the aforementioned sources as they become available very soon and further conforming the article to Wikipedia's standards.Needyhaux (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and included a source from Windy City Times about the film. I look forward to adding the rest of the aforementioned sources as they come in! Thank you to everyone for the clarifications. Needyhaux (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As sources are being made available with one already cited in the article. I am trying my hardest to understand recent notes made, and fully appreciate the edits to better conform this article to standards. Needyhaux (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) — Needyhaux (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- puddleglum^2.0 20:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has sourcing improvex?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It had zero sources when created and now it has three reliable/acceptable sources.(talk) 13:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it now has 5 acceptable sources.Needyhaux (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It seems to be better sourced now, but I couldn't check the capecodtimes.com and wellfleet.wickedlocal.com articles due to geoblocking. I'll read everything I can access and might change my !vote to Keep/Weak Keep. - Flori4nKT A L K 18:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, I know you want to drive traffic to your film but I'm afraid Wikipedia can't possibly start hosting articles on individual Youtube videos with budgets of $400. We would be swamped with them. Inundated. The reviews in tiny local news sites don't really change that.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I don't think the question is how much they made the film for or where it was released, I think the question is of its notability and how it has more sources outside of tiny local ones in its reference list -- two of which are fully reliable under Wikipedia standards -- as well as the traffic it has already gotten. However, I must admit that I fully hear you and agree that unreliably sourced YouTube videos would be an issue if they flooded Wikipedia, just like this one would have been had it never have been sourced. This AFD has been open for almost a month which is a very long time to make a decision. Hopefully this article can close and the page stay as the stub that it is for this existing film.Needyhaux (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Stricken out duplicate vote. BOVINEBOY2008 10:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was a lot of back-and-forth, but since the last relisting there appears to be overwhelming consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SiIvaGunner

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

Not sure how notable this actually is -- seems to be fleeting mentions at best, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER imo Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In WP:ENTERTAINER, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." SiIvaGunner definitely meets this requirement. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, there's a scholarly mention here. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far from "Definitely" (if that were the case all youtubers w 300k subs would have their own article)... Regarding your "Scholarly mention", see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. In any case, my gripe is that even in the Rses that Silva is mentioned in (and not all sources cited are RSes, mind you) it's just a one-liner that doesn't establish actual notability. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I can't really provide a reliable source that SiIva has a cult following, but it's still true. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevantly: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To just say "it's still true" even if you can't prove it doesn't hold water here. Unfortunately the sources you've provided here are either not RS, or one-liners, or both. There is no in-depth enduring third-party coverage of him in reliable sources. Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The We Are Number One song that became popular back in 2016 was first remixed in SiIvaGunner's YouTube channel, and it seemed to gain a ton of popularity afterwards before becoming an internet meme of its own. SiIvaGunner also has a fairly active fan wiki, although I don't know if that's sufficient proof that the channel has a "cult" following. Matoking (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A breakdown:
[13]: not the same guy??? Contrary to what the article currently states: "Essentially, GiIvaSunner is trolling anyone looking for the real YouTuber GilvaSunner." A trivial mention in any case....
[14]: A trivial description of GiIva's channel
[15] See above objection per WP:SCHOLARSHIP
[16]: primary source
[17]: supposedly self-published by subject on weebly.com, discount
[18] no idea if Nintendo Life counts as an RS on Internet culture, but it's a trivial mention anyway ("xxx got content taken down for copyvio", with only 1 real para devoted to him, the rest is just about the general phenom of copyvio strikedowns)
[19] brief mention in a listicle
[20]: likewise
[21]: yet another one-liner
[22]: ditto
[23]: yet another passing reference to his channel
[24]: millionth one-liner in a row referencing "Know Your Meme"
[25]: not even about him, & SilvaGunner is only mentioned in one line

Nuff said... Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"GiIvaSunner" is the former name of SiIvaGunner. This is explained in the article. They are not "not the same guy". On a related note, SiIva is a group, not a person. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my bad, I meant GiIva/SiIva isn't the same as Gilva/Silva (what I quoted)---it doesn't matter in any case, because the same concerns remain inre notability. But I'm not going to spend any more time on this, we'll just let the AfD process play out Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article. We think that it's worthy of being kept.VGPCVGCP (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, and apologies if this is a stupid question, wouldn't a large amount of small mentions collectively add together to have the same worth as a few major mentions? Also, in the above sources, there are at least 2 that can be considered to be primarily covering SiIva (namely the Kotaku and Dailydot articles) and the Gallery Aferro mentions aren't really "trivial". Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've done some good work and contributed to a bunch of Good Articles -- so you should know that, no, a large amount of trivial mentions aren't the same as a few major mentions. In fact, even one in-depth non-trivial mention would override a hundred sources' worth of trivial mentions.... And although Kotaku and Daily Dot are generally considered RS for pop culture, the Daily Dot one defo is a trivial mention, and the Kotaku one doesn't far much better---it's just describing the channel... Same for Gallery Aferro, just a boilerplate one-liner. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that the article has been significantly expanded since it was nominated for deletion. But it's just more primary sources being cited and peppered with some original research like "Due to the channel's frequent upload rate, occasionally reaching as many as 24 videos a day, many fans of the channel avoid subscribing to it." Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, although I didn't personally add that. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC allows "small mentions", but draws a line between "not substantial" and "trivial". 2, 11, 8 and 9 above fall into the latter for me. Though, I'm not going to comment on the actual AfD since I don't want to do a BEFORE right now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, considering the amount of actual music groups and well-known figures who have contributed to or acknowledged it, it feels like it's worth an article. In 2017 it wouldn't be, but it's grown enough and caused enough changes in the remix community that I don't think the article deserves to be deleted. Doesn't mean that the article can't be improved, though. Minindo (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the relisting, I'll restate my arguments in support of Keep here:

SiIvaGunner has a significant cult following,. (WP:ENTERTAINER)
The channel is mentioned numerous times throughout secondary sources. While many of these are minor, there are some more major instances of coverage.
The channel has been acknowledged by many well-known musical artists. Cites for this are in "Popularity".
While there is original research in the article, this is not reason to delete it, merely reason to improve upon it.

Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Omegafalcon. Dronebogus (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has a large following. I see no reason to delete his article, but allow people with smaller channels to have their articles up. I've listened to his videos while editing Wikipedia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He popularized We are Number One, The Flintstones: The Rescue of Dino & Hoppy among other things. He deserves credit. Félix An (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large cult following, demonstrated notability and significance as per WP:ENTERTAINER. Runforlimit505 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just troubled by the flimsy rationales for Keep so far (not to mention that the sock went out of the way just o !vote)--one wonders Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been acknowledged by numerous game composers, mentioned in a journal article, helped to popularize numerous memes, but most notably has a massive amount of published content and is an extremely active channel with its almost hourly posting schedule, which is what differentiates it from other parody Youtubers without Wikipedia pages (even the more popular ones) who are not nearly as extremely active or have as much content. Geekgecko (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upsidedown Cross (band)

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Non-notable band, no reliable sources. I did a Google search and the things I found were the following: unreliable databases like Metal Archives, Discogs, Sputnik Music (although I have heard that it is reliable when one of the staff members are writing a review there) and Spirit of Metal, the site of their record label (it is not independent from them), and some blogs. These sources don't establish any notability whatsoever. They existed, but they are not notable. While Anal Cunt was a notable band, not everything is notable that Seth Putnam is involved with. Prove me wrong, but I think that Upsidedown Cross is not notable for Wikipedia.[reply]

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Katz

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

Non-notable professor. Article is an orphan, and no other page on the wiki even mentions him. He had an article on French Wikipedia until 2017; that's the language in which we'd expect most of the sources to be, yet they voted to delete his article. (fr:Discussion:Gregory_Katz/Suppression) A WP:PAID contributor, User:Jkorsunsky, made a bunch of WP:ER's which have sat in Category:Requested edits since 6 May; some were accepted, but most of the ones that are sitting there add a bunch of unremarkable information. After submitting, I'll be putting them on hold. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon. Very low GS citations for a highly cited field. BLP bears the hallmarks of promotionalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I don't understand this case. The article description makes him sound like a well-established professor with a long history of past scholarly accomplishment and recognition, already a chaired professor in 2004. The Google Scholar profile tells a very different story, with relatively few publications and citations even now, and almost nothing then. Is there any explanation for this discrepancy? The French discussion hints at similar doubt among participants there, but without detail. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power and money. Until clarification arrives the en.Wikiepdia should defer to the French who know him best. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a paid editor who has put a lot of thought and research into Gregory Katz’ article, I wish to address some of the issues mentioned on this page:

Notability: Gregory Katz was a chaired professor as early as 2004. He received the San Benedetto prize (recipients include Joseph Ratzinger and the Prime Minister of Poland). His research has had an impact on health policy regulations concerning cord blood stem cells in France and Europe. More recently he directed a report endorsed by the European Union comparing 22 member states in Value-Based Health Care practices, and was chosen by Newsweek as one of 6 world experts to validate the methodology for benchmarking the world’s best hospitals. All of these statements are of course referenced in the current article or on the Talk page.
Why English? Katz’ career is French, European, and international. This is based on the above-statements (Italian prize, European publications, Newsweek), the fact that a large proportion of his publications are in English, the Chair of Innovation & Value in Health that he currently heads is designed for an international audience (the website is only in English as far as I could see), and many of his publications are in international journals.
Publications: I do not know how Google Scholar works, but there is a large body of work waiting on the Talk page for verification. The sources used include many in which Katz was lead author.
Sources: Virtual every statement on the page is backed up by one or several factual, verifiable sources from recognized publications and websites with independent publishing guidelines.
Incompleteness & organization: As I mentioned above, the page is currently very incomplete pending a review of the material on the Talk page.
Orphan: Yes, so far the page is an orphan but I believe that in itself is not sufficient reason to delete an article.

Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkorsunsky: Regarding the San Benedetto prize, it seemed to me a non-notable prize when I nominated the article. I was not able to find a page on it here in the encyclopedia, neither did I find much information online. I believe I may have found evidence Benedict XVI actually went to receive it ([26]), and it wasn't just an honorary designation, so this is perhaps relevant information. (I did not search the Italian name when I nominated.) Let's see what other editors have to say about it. I guess that the Catholic Church finds him praiseworthy due to his research into umbilical cord stem cells, as they're against other types of stem cells? It's certainly interesting information, so thank you for bringing it up. I think that the prize itself should have an article, and invite you to write one. As regards writing reports to the EU, many people do that who are not notable in Wikipedia terms. As regards Newsweek, please see WP:RSP, as of 2013, we no longer consider Newsweek a reliable source. As regards the French language, thank you for your comment. Perhaps I gave too much weight to the assessment by French Wikipedians. As regards being an orphan, this is never itself a reason to delete, rather we use it as a benchmark for a person's general notability. I'd like to ask you to please stop using the {{request edit}} template until this AfD process concludes. You may of course continue to look for sources and continue putting them on the talk page, all editors can see them and decide whether or not they make him notable. We're deciding on notability, not article quality, so there is no hurry for us to implement your WP:ERs until notability issue is settled, and you are taking up space in the ER queue and taxing resources of ER implementers such as myself, who are all volunteers, for an article that may end up deleted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkorsunsky: I suggest you find out how Google scholar works before you undertake further articles about academics, no matter how much they pay you to write about them. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. He clearly does not pass WP:PROF#C1. #C5 is more plausible, but that criterion is only for chairs given for great scholarly accomplishment, clearly not the case here. The paid editing and promotionalism is also not helping. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: What do you think of Jkorsunsky's contention that the San Benedetto prize makes him notable? Possible WP:PROF#C2? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a prize for the promotion of Catholic family values rather than for academic accomplishment. As such it does not pass #C2 and we do not have any plausible claim that it separately passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prima facie, the closest to a plausible case would be WP:PROF#C5, but it doesn't look like the "Chair of Innovation & Value in Health" is actually the kind of position which C5 refers to. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: All the criteria for WP:PROF#C5 are satisfied: he's a full professor, holds a Chair at a distinguished university (#1 French university for the citation rate per article - https://u-paris.fr/en/key-figures/) and the university source is reliable. Jkorsunsky (talk)

Being a full professor isn't a criterion anywhere in WP:PROF (what that title means varies radically from place to place). And, again, the "Chair of Innovation & Value in Health" is not the kind of chair that counts for C5. The provided source is irrelevant. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply quoting WP:PROF#C5: "The person has held a named chair appointment [...] at a major institution of higher education and research." On what grounds does this chair not qualify? The source is provided to show that University of Paris is "a major institution of higher education and research". WP:PROF#C5 also states: "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level". So this is a necessary requirement that Katz satisfies. I understand these are simply guidelines, but the guidelines here are met. Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like his career peaked in the mid-1990s. Or am I mistaken? [27].Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: Katz was born in 1971, making him 24 years old in 1995. He didn't defend his two theses until 1999 and 2000 respectively, so a mid-1990s peak is implausible. Jkorsunsky (talk)

Comment While not yet fact but food for thought, Katz is on the verge of being elected a member of the French National Academy of Surgery, founded in 1731. The nomination was delayed because of the Covid lockdown. (https://academie-chirurgie.fr/calendrier/best_of_2019_9_chirurgie_la_qualite). He will therefore soon meet criterion WP:PROF#C3. Jkorsunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that if the subject were to be elected to the French National Academy of Surgery he would pass WP:PROF#C3 shows a misunderstanding of WP:Prof. The primary criterion is WP:Prof#C1. The others, such as WP:PROF#C3 are just guides to possible notability and do not guarantee it. For example the heir to the British throne is a Fellow of the Royal Society but that does not get him to satisfy WP:Prof. His notability is based on other grounds. It is even debatable if the French National Academy of Surgery is a major enough institution to satisfy WP:Prof#C3 anyway. It is also not clear from the BLP if the subject has ever done any surgery. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Draftify, to be submitted for review at AfC or similar before move back to main space. Membership in the French National Academy of Surgery would likely be a WP:NPROF C3 pass, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I don't see a current pass of WP:NPROF or other notability guidelines. The paid editor could meanwhile work somewhat more freely on a draft article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe: Thanks for your feedback. Two questions: What would be the purpose of creating a new draft article? The Talk page is already filled with well-sourced information. And why doesn't Katz qualify under WP:PROF#C5, as I tried to demonstrate above in response to XOR'easter? Jkorsunsky (talk)

I'm proposing moving the existing page back to the Draft namespace to incubate until notability can be demonstrated, not creating a new article. WP:NPROF C5 depends heavily on the specifics. I don't think anyone will be convinced by it here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drafitfy per WP:TOOSOON, also thank you Jkorsunsky for getting back to me. (Also, the picture in the article bothers me. Could it be replaced in draft with one that does not match the style of a professional photographer and therefore is almost certainly copyrighted?)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: Sure, the image could be changed if copyright is an issue. Jkorsunsky (talk)

The photograph has the needed copyright permission and shouldn't be deleted just because it looks like it might need the permission that it does have!--Jahaza (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer appears to be a paid photographer, like the author of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if the subject eventually does meet one of the WP:NPROF criteria as this is possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that while the article has sourcing issues, NCORP is satisfied Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DPR Construction

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

It seems the company fails notability per WP:NCORP. Although the article has a few references to normally reliable sources, the coverage in the articles is extremely trivial and contain interviews. The rest of the references seem to be primary or local. Really all the coverage, like awards won, seems to be trivial. The article is seriously written like an advert. Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Quinn, Michelle (1996-07-01). "Drawing the Line on Defection When Employees Leave and Compete Against Former Boss". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Carlton, Jim (1999-06-02). "Taking Lessons From a Tech Book: DPR Construction Mimics Silicon Valley Strategies". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
"DPR Construction, Inc. MarketLine Company Profile". MarketLine. 2019-03-27. pp. 1–19.
Blair, Tom (1998). Dawson, David B.; James, Michael C. (eds.). San Diego: World Class City. Memphis, Tennessee: Towery Publishing. pp. 428–429. ISBN 1-881096-56-4. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Reeder, Linda (2016). "Chapter 2: DPR Construction Phonex Regional Office". Net Zero Energy Buildings: Case Studies and Lessons Learned. London: Routledge. p. 19–31. ISBN 978-1-138-78123-8. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Hackett, Robert (2014-11-13). "DPR Construction:Toasting the Boss (a.k.a. Everyone)". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Novak, Shonda (2017-04-12). "DPR: Contractor booming with Central Texas' economy". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Dickinson, Elizabeth Evitts (2014-12-15). "The Performing Arts: Why Occupant Behavior is the Next Big Thing in Green Building". Architecture. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
Bhattarai, Abha (2012-06-28). "DPR Construction". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.

Sources with quotes

Quinn, Michelle (1996-07-01). "Drawing the Line on Defection When Employees Leave and Compete Against Former Boss". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Ultimately, their company, DPR Construction Inc., outpaced R&S, and in December was rated by Inc. magazine as the third-fastest-growing privately held company in the United States.
...
But separating is never easy. It often turns ugly: Rudolph sued DPR Construction and in June won a $7.1 million out-of-court settlement, which Rudolph estimates is roughly equal to DPR's net profits since it was formed. The decision to leave is often wrought with emotion, hobbled with financial and legal considerations and plagued with ethical dilemmas. What duty is owed a company or boss? Where does self-interest begin and loyalty end?
...
DPR is not far from R&S in Foster City but very different in style, from its name - which is taken from the first initials of their given names, Doug, Peter and Ron, rather than last names like Rudolph and Sletten - to its open, modernistic design. At DPR, company philosophy and mission is posted on the wall. And DPR has a clear succession plan that requires principals to start selling back their stock to the company at age 60.
...
No one would have cared about DPR if it hadn't become a success story. DPR is currently about double the size of R&S, with about 800 employees and $500 million in revenues this year, compared with R&S's 500 employees and $300 million in revenues.
Carlton, Jim (1999-06-02). "Taking Lessons From a Tech Book: DPR Construction Mimics Silicon Valley Strategies". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
This company has all the trappings of Silicon Valley success: outlandish growth, Democracy in the trenches, executives in open cubicles, even the Friday afternoon beer busts. But DPR Construction Inc. is focused on bricks and mortar instead of bits and bytes. The company has risen from out of nowhere over the past decade to become one of the major construction firms for the stars of Silicon Valley, building major projects for Apple Computer Inc., Intel Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. among others. As of last year, DPR’s revenue totaled $1.3 billion, 46% higher than 1997 and a nearly eightfold jump from five years ago. That growth rate, reminiscent of some successful Internet firms in the valley, is unprecedented in the construction business.
... As a result, DPR has earned what analysts call one of the best on‐time performances in the construction industry.
“They definitely are a trendsetter,” says Hoyt Lowder, senior vice president of FMI Corp., an industry consulting firm in Tampa, Fla., ...
The success hasn’t come without controversy. Some contractors complain the company undercuts them on bids, while raiding employees their firms by offering higher salaries. The loudest criticism comes from Rudolph and Sletten Inc., a rival in Foster City, Calif., from which all three of DPR's co‐founders resigned as senior executives in 1990. The men, Doug Woods, Peter Nosler and Ron Davidowski (DPR was named after their first initials), say they left Rudolph and Sletten after its founders reneged on a promise to eventually turn ownership over to the employees.
"DPR Construction, Inc. MarketLine Company Profile". MarketLine. 2019-03-27. pp. 1–19.
The report provides detailed analysis and background about the company:
The company has built a reputation for handling complex projects for a strong customer base. DPR's customers include major companies like projects for Facebook, Ernst & Young, Abbot Laboratories, AT&T, Nokia, Baker & McKenzie, and Sun Microsystems. Its client list also includes Pixar Animation Studios, Hewlett- Packard, Abbott Laboratories, Dell Inc., eBay, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Bank of America, Barclays Capital, Roche Molecular Systems, Maloof Sports and Entertainment, Yahoo, PricewaterhouseCoopers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and so on. A strong customer base ensures steady growth of the company. It also enables it to increase its brand image in a highly competitive market and subsequently attract high value clients.
...
DPR's business is concentrated geographically. Most of the company's operations are confined to the US market. This geographical concentration significantly limits the company's customer reach and exposure to developing markets in comparison to some of its competitors like Bechtel Group, which operate in markets other than the US. Bechtel group, along with the US, has its operations in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia Pacific, and Latin America which reduces the risks involved with its exposure to the domestic market dynamics. On the other hand, overdependence on a single market puts the company in a disadvantage as it loses out on emerging opportunities in other international markets.
...
DPR undertook several initiatives recently. For instance, in February 2019, DPR along with Perry McCall Construction was selected by the Baptist Health to build a seven story building that include Wolfson Children's critical care center in Florida. In the same month, the company was also selected by City of Tampa. The contract is to provide design build contracting services to develop The Hyatt House and Hyatt Place development project. In January 2019, DPR was given a contract by Mesa City Council, to construct Arizona State University at the Mesa City Center; and the Plaza at Mesa City Center. In November 2018, the company, along with Ridge Capital Inc, Lionakis and ZGF Architects was selected by the California State Teachers' Retirement System to build and design 275,000 sq. ft. building. In August 2018, the company was selected by Clemson University to offer project and construction management services for College of Business project. In the same month, the company was selected as a general contractor by Methodist Health System to build a 190,000 sq. ft. acute care hospital and a 45,000 sq. ft. medical office building in Midlothian.
Blair, Tom (1998). Dawson, David B.; James, Michael C. (eds.). San Diego: World Class City. Memphis, Tennessee: Towery Publishing. pp. 428–429. ISBN 1-881096-56-4. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The book notes:
When founded in 1990, DPR Construction, Inc. set out to challenge "customary practices" and to reexamine the relationships between building contractors and owners, developers, architects, and engineers.
...
DPR Construction, Inc. is recognized as one of San Diego's largest and most successful builders of privately owned facilities. Almost 10 percent of the company's total business on an annual basis is done in San Diego County alone. What is even more significant is that in an industry that generally purchases construction on a "low bid" basis, more than 95 percent of DPR's work companywide is done on a negotiated basis—a process where the project team and their qualifications are the primary selection criteria.
Reeder, Linda (2016). "Chapter 2: DPR Construction Phonex Regional Office". Net Zero Energy Buildings: Case Studies and Lessons Learned. London: Routledge. p. 19–31. ISBN 978-1-138-78123-8. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The book notes:
DPR Construction renovated an abandoned building into this 16,500-square-foot office in 2011 and achieved net zero energy performance for a cost premium of about $83 per square foot. In addition to office and support spaces like conference rooms, the building also contains a wine bar, kitchen café, fitness center, training room, and meditation room. Owner DPR Construction, a national construction company specializing in highly technical and sustainable buildings, led the project's design-build team with the goal of creating a building that was cost-effective as well as high performing.
Hackett, Robert (2014-11-13). "DPR Construction:Toasting the Boss (a.k.a. Everyone)". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Since its founding in July 1990, DPR Construction (named for Doug, Peter, and Ron's collective monogram) has encouraged its workers to take the lead. The founders decided from the beginning that the new firm would be employee owned via a phantom stock program that ties compensation to company profits and individual performance. They even eliminated titles from business cards. And to prevent power struggles, the founders devised a buy-sell agreement that would bar shareholders from divesting stock to anyone outside the company. Everyone with equity is required to sell his stake back to the company beginning at age 60. Now celebrating its 25th year, the company has helped build projects ranging from Facebook's data centers to R&D labs for universities and pharmaceutical companies, and has opened 20 offices from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco. Last year the company acquired Atlanta-based Hardin Construction, and revenues hit a record $2.6 billion.
Already, two of the founders—Nosler and Davidowski—have relinquished their stakes in the company, as agreed, though they remain active as directors. Woods' ownership, too, is set to expire at the beginning of 2016.
Novak, Shonda (2017-04-12). "DPR: Contractor booming with Central Texas' economy". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Amid Central Texas’ ongoing building boom, DPR Construction is one of the region’s busiest construction firms, with an ever-expanding list of high-profile projects bearing its banner.
...
These are but a few of the projects for a firm that has experienced extraordinary growth in revenue and headcount since 2013, the year it acquired Atlanta-based Hardin Construction Co.
DPR’s Central region, which includes, Austin, Dallas and Houston, has grown to $925 million in revenue, an increase of almost 300 percent from 2013. The figure accounts for about 21 percent of the firm’s $4.5 billion in revenue companywide.
In the Austin area alone,revenue has soared to a projected $375 million this year, up from $202 million in 2013.
Of DPR’s nearly 4,600 employees, 543 work in the Austin area, up from 170 people in 2013. Those include both salaried and administrative employees and craftspeople.
Dickinson, Elizabeth Evitts (2014-12-15). "The Performing Arts: Why Occupant Behavior is the Next Big Thing in Green Building". Architecture. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
The first thing that you notice about the San Francisco regional office for DPR Construction, a national builder known for highly technical and sustainable projects, is that from the outside, the building in no way resembles the typical headquarters of a construction firm. Located on a quiet street near the city’s famed Embarcadero district, the glass façade frames an interior that looks like a boutique hotel married an Apple Store. Bikes hang from interior racks. An open floor plan reveals a well-stocked kitchen with a mosaic of plants climbing the wall. Look closely and you can just make out the lobby cocktail bar, a custom-designed length of reclaimed wood containing a garden of live succulents capped in glass. Not a bad place for an office happy hour. “People walking by wonder whether we are a bike shop or a café, because it doesn’t scream construction,” says director of sustainability Ted van der Linden.
The open façade purposefully emulates DPR’s broader goal of transparency in building design and performance. Completed last May, the company’s San Francisco digs could become the city’s first net-zero office space (DPR is pursuing certification for the project with the International Living Future Institute). Designed by FME Architecture + Design, this is the third net-zero regional office that the company has completed—the others are in Phoenix and San Diego.
Bhattarai, Abha (2012-06-28). "DPR Construction". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2020-06-01. Retrieved 2020-06-01.
The article notes:
Each of the company’s 16 locations has a wine bar, with the exception of the DPR’s Texas offices, which have saloons.
...
DPR, which was founded in 1990 and builds offices, hospitals, university labs and other complex projects, counts “enjoyment” as one of its four core values (the other are “integrity,” “uniqueness” and “ever forward”).
...
Employees gather at the wine bar one afternoon every month to toast milestones, ranging from new contracts to new babies.
The article includes quotes from employees.

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

Cunard (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 1996 article in San Jose Mercury News notes, "Ultimately, their company, DPR Construction Inc., outpaced R&S, and in December was rated by Inc. magazine as the third-fastest-growing privately held company in the United States. ... No one would have cared about DPR if it hadn't become a success story. DPR is currently about double the size of R&S, with about 800 employees and $500 million in revenues this year, compared with R&S's 500 employees and $300 million in revenues." (R&S was the company that the three founders of DPR worked at before founding DPR. The article notes, "R&S sued DPR in San Mateo County Court for breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition and theft of trade secrets.")
A 1999 article in The Wall Street Journal notes, "The company has risen from out of nowhere over the past decade to become one of the major construction firms for the stars of Silicon Valley, building major projects for Apple Computer Inc., Intel Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. among others. As of last year, DPR’s revenue totaled $1.3 billion, 46% higher than 1997 and a nearly eightfold jump from five years ago. That growth rate, reminiscent of some successful Internet firms in the valley, is unprecedented in the construction business."
A 2014 article in Fortune notes, "Now celebrating its 25th year, the company has helped build projects ranging from Facebook's data centers to R&D labs for universities and pharmaceutical companies, and has opened 20 offices from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco. Last year the company acquired Atlanta-based Hardin Construction, and revenues hit a record $2.6 billion."
A 2019 MarketLine report notes, "The company has built a reputation for handling complex projects for a strong customer base. DPR's customers include major companies like projects for Facebook, Ernst & Young, Abbot Laboratories, AT&T, Nokia, Baker & McKenzie, and Sun Microsystems. Its client list also includes Pixar Animation Studios, Hewlett- Packard, Abbott Laboratories, Dell Inc., eBay, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Bank of America, Barclays Capital, Roche Molecular Systems, Maloof Sports and Entertainment, Yahoo, PricewaterhouseCoopers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and so on."
Cunard (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 06:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article suffers from the overuse of WP:PRIMARY sources, I still feel there is enough for WP:NCORP. Really could do with an overhaul on sources. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also extremely trivial coverage in the sources provided by Cunard that don't pass NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References as per cunard are independent, have detail about company performance and cover more than one subject. Davidstewartharvey

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Furqan Media Foundation

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process. This "foundation" is ISIS's film crew that creates videos of people being burned alive or beheaded. There is no coverage of this entity in the sources. Most of the article is just a listing of their accomplishments/productions. Also as a sidebar this has an NPOV problem. The only review of them in there is: "Al-Furqan is considered to be a considerable innovation in jihadist media, with Kavkaz Center describing it as "a milestone on the path of jihad, a distinguished media that takes the great care in the management of the conflict with the crusaders " I believe that some of this should be preserved and recommend a merge/redirect to the ISIS article. If pinged I'd handle it if needed. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to its abstract this appears to be a 22-page peer-reviewed academic journal article about the subject. To get the full text it needs to be requested from the author. I have not done so yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
doi:10.6094/behemoth.2019.12.1.1007 has a few hundred words about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-01 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. While the subject doesn't seem notable enough on its own for a separate article based on the sourcing, there still might be something with retaining by merging or at redirecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 06:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. If merged, I would recommend a substantial rewrite to be less promotional in tone. It's generally important to avoid articles with a promotional tone, but I'd argue this is especially true given the organization in question (the sheer overwhelming in-your-face gruesomeness of a Wikipedia article praising the media production skills of ISIS is a bit too ghastly to be funny). { $\mathbb {JPG}$ } 05:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a mess of propaganda - but I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York Stem Cell Foundation

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

WP:NCORP, WP:ADVERT. The article was created by the organization itself, and significantly edited by at least one single purpose account and main points are based on primary sources. Some of the sources not related to the page are not significant independent coverage, such as biography page of various researchers. Even if notability as an organization can be established per WP:NCORP, the whole thing would need to be rewritten to be encyclopedic WP:TNT without POV bias infused by the connected editors. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-05 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although some researchers associated with them might have gotten coverage in reliable sources, notability isn't inherited and I see nothing notable here about the actual organization itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 06:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politics on trial

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOT. References are social media and local paper.. No secondary referencing. Local interest only. scope_creep^Talk 20:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Meri Love Story (2016)

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

A non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 16:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm failing to find the substantial reviews in reliable sources out there that are required for notability. Which isn't surprising considering it's a made for TV

movie.

Delete Unnecessary article about a very less known film. Can't see possibility of creation in future. SyedAfzaal123 (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC) --Adamant1 (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Coronation Street characters (2005)#Yana Lumb. While some sources have been found, there is sufficient concern over the reliability and relevance of them that most participants feel removing the article in favour of a redirect would be a sensible choice. ~ mazca ^talk 14:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Tunnicliffe

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

not seeing how meets gng Laun chba ller 21:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress. This does not meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect: There are a number of Metro and The Sun articles, although they are not considered reliable sources. There is also coverage in The Mirror (https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/keith-lemons-new-show-horrifies-22005570), where there is no consensus as to reliability, and in other sources for which I haven't been able to find a consensus:

→https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18447167.keith-lemon-show-goes-ethos-crafting-says-contestant/ – The Bradford Telegraph and Argus

→https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/soap-stars-street-art-987997 – Manchester Online

→https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/8235391.former-corrie-star-turns-skiptons-sheep-into-pop-art/ – Craven Herald and Pioneer

I'd certainly appreciate feedback on whether any of the above sources are considered reliable. If the consensus is to delete the article, however, I would suggest a "redirect" to Coronation Street characters. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've never been sure about the reliability of local papers. You should ask at the reliable sources noticeboard.--Laun chba ller 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting that discussion at the noticeboard, Launchballer. It is a good question and I am interested to see what others think! Dflaw4 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Redirect I agree with Dflaw4, it's a keep --although weak-- or a redirect to Coronation Street characters. The question on the reliability of local papers is interesting, any link to get the answer? Innovamus (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right here, although I forgot to ask whether that Mirror source was reliable or not and may post again on the noticeboard to ask about it.--Laun chba ller 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the redirect target above. I'm pretty sure in most cases local papers are to narrow in audience and therefore not suitable. There's something in notability about how newspapers have to at least be regional and should still be used with caution even in that case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Members of Congress who have represented Erie, Pennsylvania

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

No reason to have a list of members for one midsized city but none of the other US cities. There are websites where these things can be found, and most city articles have their congressional districts listed. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's kind of synthy to say that these people were "representing Erie" specifically? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to narrow and regional (doesn't appeal to broad audience) to qualify for a list article IMO. Plus, like said above there is already other articles that cover this type of thing perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination does not provide a reason to delete. The argument about other cities is a form of WP:OSE and does not explain why this is a problem. Saying that this infomation is found elsewhere tends to justify the page per WP:LISTN. And there seems to be no consideration of alternatives such as merger with the page about the city. The issue which the page seems to be addressing is that congressional districts have been quite plastic and this is a way of providing some historical continuity. Why is this a problem? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete members of congress lists are grouped by district not by city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:6C9A:42B2:C9B2:BEF4 (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the list has a well-defined scope with clear inclusion criteria relating to a notable subject (Congressional representatives). This list serves a very useful purpose. Congressional district numbers often have no continuity across redistricting, which occurs every 10 years and sometimes more. A state's "1st district" might represent one side of the state one decade and the other side of the state the next decade. Such districts have nothing in common except an arbitrary number. Lists organized by actual community represented is a very welcome addition to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the rationales of the nominator and Johnpacklambert should be discarded by the closing admin, because they are based on WP:OSDE, which is not a valid rationale for deletion. CJK09 (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most cities in the United States (and Canada, and India, and Australia, and the United Kingdom, and France, and Germany, and Spain, and Italy, and I could keep on naming other representative democracies with elected governments until this comment was the size of a small novel) do not have lists like this, and there's no reason why Erie PA specifically needs special treatment that New York City and London and Los Angeles and Toronto and Paris and Berlin and Mumbai and Sydney aren't getting. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then those articles should be created. "Other stuff doesn't exist" is not a valid reason to delete a page that meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. CJK09 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they really shouldn't. Sometimes other stuff doesn't exist for a good reason: having one of these for every city on earth would be literally unmaintainable, and the value in even trying would be literally nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about every city on earth; just those in the US. There are only about 300 cities of this size in the US and that's not an unmaintainable number of pages.

Why would or should only US cities be eligible for this? That's the flaw in your reasoning: there may be only 300 cities in the US of comparable size to Erie, but there are literally thousands upon thousands of cities in the world of comparable size to Erie, and nobody's even tried to offer a credible reason why cities in the US should get special treatment that cities in the rest of the world aren't getting — literally all you've done is assert US-exclusivity as self-evident, without the first hint of a reason why it should be self-evident. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this fails WP:LISTN and WP:SYNTH, there is no reason to suggest that a list of congresspeople that happen to have had a minor city in their congressional districts is a notable topic. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes our criteria for WP:NLIST aides the readers in navigation and information, and that is what this encyclopedia is about. Additionally the rationale for nominating is that we should not have this city represented because that other city does not have a list. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A chronological list of Representatives of Erie is valuable whether or not someone else attempted it for Erie or elsewhere and cannot be rendered within Wikipedia using Categories. I would modify it to place the district name on the same line for instances where one city, like New York City, has multiple districts within its borders. I have often run into this issue of districts bouncing from one district number to another and would frankly see value in deleting district pages instead. They tell us nothing. The page will not require extensive maintenance and a broader application would depend on others adopting the model. Pnoble805 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicates United States congressional delegations from Pennsylvania which may be combined with maps (e.g. from [28] and [29]) to account for redistricting. This should not spawn countless articles covering any possible city in the country. Reywas92^Talk 08:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That other page doesn't cite any sources and seems more difficult to understand and use, especially if you need to cross reference with uncited external pages to do so. That page seems to need more work than the nominated page. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can AWB these citations into these articles pretty easily. What would "need more work" is that we're missing "List of Members of Congress who have represented [Philadelphia][Pittsburgh][any other city in the country]" and this history is best presented with respect to the districts and delegations, not unlimited lists, since members of congress are elected by larger districts, not by city. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the moment, appears to be WP:OR and possibly WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as unhelpful. —GoldRingChip (it/they) 17:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Andrew Davidson, CJK09 and Pnoble805 make good points which are at risk of being missed or misunderstood: listing members who represented congressional districts with an arbitrary number in common, regardless of the geographical location of such districts, as we do at Pennsylvania's 16th congressional district#List of members representing the district and 434 other such articles, is clearly unhelpful and confusing, and listing by geographical areas represented might be more productive. I don't think it's likely that there would be a consensus to delete those articles, since in spite of a lack of clear notability they've become part of the furniture, but I would probably support it if it were proposed. Keep !voters are also right that WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not compelling. But this list still has to satisfy WP:LISTN, and fails on that count – there's no indication the topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think deletion would be hasty given the unique nature of the article's presentation concept. Which experts would you propose should have been summoned? Wikipedia format experts would of course take refuge in the familiar and say the format is new therefore not in compliance. District chronologies are notable, especially when they are useful to those reaching for an encyclopedia. The need for this new format, and perhaps the lack of need for the current District format, is evident on its face. I appreciate you reiterating my point but don't see how at the same time you can propose deletion, which certainly doesn't move the ball forward. A more careful handling of this oeuvre is warranted. Pnoble805 (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion on the basis of WP:LISTN, which, ambiguous and variously interpreted though it is, is our only bit of solid guidance on the question of lists. I favour a stricter interpretation of the guideline than most: in my reading it means (or should mean) that we don't publish lists of things except when reliable sources have also published lists of those things or there's significant coverage of those things as a group. For example, there are probably books about mayors of New York City (not individual mayors, but about mayors of the city as a group), so List of mayors of New York City is a notable list. But there aren't, to my knowledge, sources about members of Congress representing Erie, so this list fails the criterion. (Although the necessity of sometimes splitting lists of officeholders from main articles per WP:SIZESPLIT, resulting in lists which don't strictly speaking need to be notable, muddles things further...) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine that there are references of representatives from a particular city or region (as I remember newspapers having weekly boxes of how your legislator voted). What is usually lacking in all articles about congressional districts is historical maps or descriptions of which cities were part of the district (and I am sure the same can be true about ridings and electoral districts in other countries). I only comment here because I don't really think that this squarely passes WP:LISTN, but I do not see the harm to this project if it is kept. --Enos733 (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrong venue. scope_creep^Talk 10:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 06:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Clutch Corporation

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

I did source searches on google and couldn't bring anything up. Article is quite undersourced and promotional. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way over promotional, lacking reliable in-depth secondary sources, and seems to have been created by someone that has a connection to the company. It would be worth doing AfDs to the articles that are linked in this one, like Francis Mechner and Chyron Corporation. As they appear to be created by the same person and have the same issues. Especially Francis Mechner. Adamant1 (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like an "about us" page of a non-notable company. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.womeninaerospace.org/events/gallery/2005awards.html

[1]