Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 July	26 July >

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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruf R Kompressor

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

A poorly written article which does less to cover it's subject matter in detail. It is better off as a section in the Ruf automobile main page. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think with a little more info and some formatting I can clean this one up just fine, i'll get on it after I finish improving the RK Coupe article. TKOIII (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be really helpful. This article also needs an infobox and some more citations to bring it up to par. In its current state, it does not look like a proper article.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source, an infobox and more info to the article so I think it's pretty much up to par at this point. TKOIII (talk) 19:32, 28 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Kumar (author)

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

Promotional bio of motivational speaker and writer. Notability is doubtful and although she writes columns for several papers, there does not appear to be good coverage of her in reliable independent sources. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree that it sounds promotional. A brief search finds only social media and blogs. Not saying she's not notable, but on first pass, it will take some research or editors more familar with this arena. I'll look also for RS. Netherzone (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article that is onverly promotional and not based on reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a purely promotional text, created by a kamikaze account from what was originally a humble yet proper redirect to The Final Call, her only claim to fame and a meagre one at that. Nothing to satisfy WP:NCREATIVE or even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 1 August 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. $Salvio$ 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Morás

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

Non-notable journalist. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 22:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:N and also WP:BIO. Emaponche (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable journalist, well known work and participation in the mass media WP:BASIC. User:LiebeZenPeace (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a consumer of Spanish-speaking mass media, especially Argentine, I personally do not believe in the particular remarkableness of this journalist. He could be notable only within a certain particular audience, but not so much as to have great importance within the mass media as he is not widely recognized. His most important work only includes three documentary films that are also not prominent or noteworthy. I think that WP:JOURNALIST would strongly apply here. Emaponche (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability depends on the article containing independent sources WP: IS, not its popularity WP:OBSCURE WP:NOBODYREADSIT. I agree that in his documentaries his publication is validated WP:JOURNALIST, but also in his journalistic work that, it is worth mentioning, appears in the following official media of great international scope: Hispantv, RT, Sputnik, and Telesur, and official media from Argentina: La Voz del Interior, Infobae, Canal22, and Pressenza. Without mention his credibility, which, far from being questioned, his notability was built on his work where he uses multiple sources to maintain objectivity and partiality.LiebeZenPeace (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for clarifying your viewpoint. Secondly, you mention that he "appears in (…) media of great international scope". Altough that might be actually true, I still think that the sourcing on the page is very poor. WP:EXIST might be a nice explanation as sources from Infobae (the only major media source of all references) are self-published and do not provide relevance about him (WP:USINGSPS). Thirdly, as you explained, he mostly appears in media (such as HispanTV, RT, Sputnik, and Telesur) that were classified by Wikipedia as questionable sources (WP:DEPRECATED), so his work could be WP:BIASED and lead to WP:SOAP. Lastly and most importantly, as his work might fall into WP:BLPFRINGE, this all would explain why I believe the article shouldn't stay in Wikipedia. Emaponche (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get to the point. I put the links and references there to demonstrate the trajectory of his career, not to validate his arguments, personally according to his sources, which by the way he uses sources of all categories in his private investigations, but it is not the point, but to verify that he has been in those places, not if he is biased or not, it is precisely a biography of a character that I think I have argued his remarkable, since he appears in many media from all strata, so he has a large number of people interested in your subject, which is proven, and that is why your article is convenient here, and it is fair. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO as there is no independent coverage of the subject on any reliable source, cites either point to opinion pieces by the subject or passing mentions of the subject on independent journalism blogs. These sources mention the subject as part of promotion of his fringe theory advocacy, including his anti-Soros campaign, which is against Wikipedia policy (WP:FRINGEBLP). The Wikipedia user that wrote this article is a personal friend of the subject so it's an obvious case of WP:COISELF and WP:SOAPBOX. --MewMeowth (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you are saying, you say they only quote him on blogs WP: AQU, but the character in question is not only a WP:JOURNALIST, whether you like his investigative topics or not WP:TASTE WP: IDL, he is called in official media WP: HITS WP:RS, as I explained in my previous comment, precisely because of the rigor of his work, and because they value that as such WP: NBIO. And this is enough reason to have an article on Wikipedia. On the other hand, Soros is not protected on Wikipedia, because it is about neutrality, and Morás is not only recognized for that particular work, of which there are secondary sources in this regard, he has even been called to speak about politics in general in recognized media in his country WP: SOSTENIDO. And, of course, I absolutely have no relationship with Morás, and that accusation is suspicious. All neutrality requirements are being met here WP:NOTPROMOTION WP:NPOV, your accusation seems to me sincerely exaggerated. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a photo of you, next to this article's subject, calling him "a friend," on Instagram. I would definitely call that a relationship. As per Wikipedia policy you are to disclose potential COIs and in fact you are barred from meta-discussions such as AfD on articles where you have a COI. --MewMeowth (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you investigating me? Well, if you are so interested in my private life, I can tell you that I met him, on the street, and I liked him, because I agree with his rigor and his work, but I do not have much relationship with him, in fact, We met when I was on vacation, once, you can't say that we are personal friends. I just hope you don't think that's why I have no right to write an article about him, because Wikipedia does not prohibit it, actually I have been neutral and descriptive, for example I put in Controversies that he is critical of Zionism but that there are libertarian circles where they are critical of his position, where you see partiality, he is concrete, but I do not find real reasons to delete the article, let's be fair. But I think that you are harassing me when looking for me on Instagram, and that you are boasting in bad faith, with that argument I can say that you are wanting to eliminate it because you openly have beliefs contrary to those that Nicolás Morás maintains, but nevertheless I do not do it WP:GF. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LiebeZenPeace: You are calling him a friend, then you have a COI, and will need to withdraw. I will post a note up to coin tonight. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I have already answered you in your comment, but I'm afraid to add that in addition to speculating maliciously about the context of the photo they took harassing me, also are trying to censure me for telling me that I have COI as if the article I wrote was biased, which I already mentioned but I repeat, you are following a leader, and you have not responded to my affirmations. You are WP:BIASED, please i am asking you impartiality and consideration. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MewMeowth: "As per Wikipedia policy you are to disclose potential COIs and in fact you are barred from meta-discussions such as AfD on articles where you have a COI." – He is certainly allowed to participate in an AfD discussion relating to a topic in which he may have a conflict of interest. He just needs to disclose his personal relationship with the subject first, and he also needs to avoid creating or contributing to articles in which his biases can influence his discretion. I don't see this as a case of paid editing. To me, it's an acquaintance of the article subject who wants to help raise his profile by giving him his own Wikipedia page. If this is the first time he's done something like this, then it's fair to assume that he didn't realize his editing would be seen as a conflict of interest. I don't think it's fair for anyone to label LiebeZenPeace a single-purpose account on the basis of one ill-advised article. Kurtis ^(talk) 13:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: And that's exactly the opposite of what the article's creator has done here. The article was single-handedly created by them, they have never disclosed their COI, even going as far as removing the COI tag I placed in the article, as well as being very concerned about Google's indexing of the article. Are we going to be so obtuse and ignore an obvious case of WP:SOAPBOX? Of course, the article will get removed on AfD by the mere fact of not having a single valid source that would merit its existence on Wikipedia, but it's very concerning to see how often Wikipedia turns a blind eye to obvious cases of paid, PR or SEO editing. --MewMeowth (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MewMeowth: Yes, I'm aware that he didn't follow COI guidelines, which is why I mentioned it in the first place. My view is that there isn't enough evidence to implicate LiebeZenPeace in paid editing. He probably wanted to create an article for someone who he personally met and considered notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, and then after he created it, he searched for it on Google and was concerned that it didn't show up. Is it possible that he has a genuine conflict of interest and is receiving some sort of compensation for his edits? Sure it is. But until we can establish that there is a pattern of such editing, or we get some sort of confirmation that he's engaging in advocacy, I don't think it's fair to call LiebeZenPeace a single-purpose account. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LiebeZenPeace is a SPA and likely a UPE. I never noticed. And the reason I posted this. Wikipedia:Help desk#Why does my article not appear in Google?. He seems desperate to get indexed by Google. I have left a WP:PAID disclosure on the editors page. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tell you that you are subjectively interpreting my concerns, since I asked that question because I did not know about it, and I had not seen another user asking about it, I must tell you that you are not only biased in your comment, you also incur as the Another user in the lack of good faith WP:GF, and you're taking someone who falsely insinuates that I want to promote, you are following a WP:LEADER, that accusing me with bad faith and obsessively investigating me. I still do not know about some policies like the ones you have put me in, I do not receive money, I am making this contribution for reasons that I have stated and that you decided to ignore and speculate instead. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much independent coverage, fails notability. Nika2020 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nika2020: I have already argued the importance of the journalist for a considerable group of people from different backgrounds and classes, I also argued that the sources that I put is to verify the places where he was, all those factors give him enough notability. I also argued that your WP: OBSCURE is not a reason for deletion, as well as your WP: POPULARITY. I would greatly appreciate you taking the time to view my arguments in this discussion. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You not practicing WP:AGF, by pestering an editor who seems to be in good standing. OK, you have posted your arguments. Let the others and the Afd proceed at its own pace, please. scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While it is obvious that LiebeZenPeace has put a great deal of effort into this article, and the journalist's career does seem to be on an upward trajectory, I am of the opinion that he is not currently notable enough for inclusion.
The biggest issue is a near-total dearth of reliable sources. Searching for possible citations turned up links from the Latin American Information Agency, Sputnik News, Sign of the Times, Palestina Libre, and People Pill (blacklisted from being linked to on Wikipedia), as well as a YouTube video with 22,000 views uploaded by a channel with just over one hundred subscribers. None of these would fly as sources, either because their publishers have a known political bias, or they are otherwise not sufficiently accredited.
As far as WP:JOURNALIST is concerned, he fulfills none of the guidelines. While he is not unknown among Argentine libertarians and some segment of the Latin American community, it is safe to say that he has not become a significant figure in his field just yet, and he hasn't published a body of work that would be notable enough to justify having an article about him. The closest he would get to qualifying is criterion 4, specifically subsection "c": it seems like his work is beginning to garner some degree of critical attention. But even then, having an article for this journalist is really stretching the parameters of what would be permissible by that metric.
Because this is a BLP, it's better to err on the side of caution. While I have no prejudice against creating an article for him down the road should his accomplishments merit one, he doesn't have a substantial enough repertoire at this time to be included. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: I hope you investigate better the next time, each video that he uploads to his channel exceeds at least a hundred views, reaching two hundred, three hundred and even a million and eight hundred thousand views as in his last documentary about the pope.Few libertarians in South America achieve this, has made many complaints that could not be refuted, is subject to "critical attention" as some have wanted but without success. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I see quite a few errors in what appears to be a machine-translated article from Spanish; this page needs more work to make it actually English-language. The subject appears to be quite controversial on Twitter. I can't read Spanish well enough to evaluate all of the sources. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:JOURNALIST as well as WP:GNG. The overtly promotional text does not help in the least. Most sources indicate simply that he's a journalist (e.g. this, this, this , this, and so on), but on that we would all proclaim nolo contendere. -The Gnome (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uusmiirad

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. (Also has slipped through the cracks for over a decade.) Ravenswing 14:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. I don't think DICDEF really applies. Despite the wording of the article ("Uusmiiradis a Somali word..."), the topic here seems to be the process of getting water from a camel, not the Somali word for that process. That said, I found only three published sources for this, one of which (Latin and Samatar) is already cited, and another which is so similar to the content here that it may be based in part on this article. The third is the 1986 Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Ethiopian Studies, which is on Google Books, but only in snippet view. If there are no more sources than that, then the topic fails Notability (thus my very weak keep). But I wonder if their might be sources on the topic in other languages? Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with DMySon that DICDEF doesn't apply, this is about a particular practice of slaughtering one's camel as a source of water. I found discussion in Samatar (1982) Oral Poetry and Somali Nationalism (In an uncommonly dry season, the last drops of water in the land are extracted from the stomach of the camel. This is done through a process called 'uusmiirad' in which the stomach is hung from a tree after being pricked open with a thorn at various places. Liquid niters through these openings and is collected by wooden buckets p.13) Other search terms which might be useful, according to the Somali dictionary Qaamuuska Af-Soomaaliga are uusmiir, uusmiiro, uusmiirasho, and uusmiirid. I also wonder if maybe the topic of killing animals for water in a survival situation might be easier to find sources for? That is, have an article about the general practice, not just the Somali, camel-specific one. It might make more sense to merge it to another article, but I don't know enough about survival skills or ethnography to know how common a tactic this is across cultures. Is there a place to list this deletion discussion in terms of the survivalism aspect rather than just specifically as a somali aspect or as a word aspect? Umimmak (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm quite happy to amend my nomination to include that this fails the GNG as well. As far as whether this is a practice generally across the world, well, sure: I do know a lot more than most about survival skills, and slaughtering riding animals/herd beasts for water, food and shelter -- a/k/a putting the critter's body between you and the blizzard -- is well-known. The issue would be in finding reliable sources discussing the practice, as well as finding a generally accepted name by which the practice is known. As far as that goes, however, I'd think that this particular article's name would be a particularly obscure and useless search term. Ravenswing 02:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at current state of available sourcing. I am finding the same four sources provided by Cnilep and Umimmak, which show that this is a thing but a too-obscure and rarely mentioned one (at least in English language sources). No different Books, Scholar, or general hits for any of the alternate spellings. I think we are looking a at WP:GNG failure here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:GNG due to the lack of good sourcing. I'm not sure what else needs to be said about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:21, 25 July 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Gilbert

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

This individual does not appear to be notable. His only claim to fame is a handful of self-produced direct-to-DVD documentaries on conspiracy-esque subjects and Bob Dylan, and belonging to a local Bob Dylan cover band. This page has already been deleted once in the spring of 2012 and a deletion attempt that December after a since indefinitely blocked user resurrected the article resulted in the article being kept. The page also looks to be little more than a self-congratulatory effort at pretending he is a notable individual as the article has been tagged. Pahiy (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 22:17, 25 July 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 was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2012-12 ✓ keep, 2012-05 ✗ delete

Related discussions: 2016-10 Atomic Jihad ✗ delete

Logs: 2012-05 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

15:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the sourcing is enough for general notability. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. Yipee8f93k (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable in that his work has been reviewed and discussed in numerous reliable sources, as two minutes of research will verify. No doubt the article can be improved but that is not the question here. Dayirmiter (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: enough coverage in reliable sources to contribute to the notability of subject.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 14:05, 10 August 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 is clear that the subject's role as a reputable scholar suffices to meet our criteria for inclusion. BD2412 T 01:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Senn

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

This article has several problems. I would put it at WP:BLPPROD, but it has a source (albeit with questionable reliability). The vast majority of the content is unsourced, and the two sources in the article are terrible. One is broken, and even if it were to work, should not be considered. It is by the church he is a pastor at. A pastor's page on a church website is not neutral. The other article mentions Frank a single time, and is clearly not about him. This may even be a WP:GNG fail, as I cannot find any sources about him elsewhere. The unsourced content is so great in number that the article would likely not be salvageable if it were all to be removed. I-82-I | TALK 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I-82-I | TALK 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found multiple reviews for multiple books, including [1][2][3][4][5]. That makes a case for WP:NAUTHOR. The article isn't in great shape, but I don't think it's quite so bad as for WP:TNT. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Russ Woodroofe. Senn is a well-known academic, theologian, and author in western liturgical studies. Might be one of the premier scholars in the area across North America. Seems like this article just needs better sources and content in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Afuller2028 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to just about be notable. Deletion is not cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs more citations. But it seems notable.DMySon 08:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: rather impressive Google Scholar results for the subject area suggests he passes WP:PROF #1. St Anselm (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as stated by Afuller2028 DocumentError (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reviews shown in this discussion that show that his works have received academic reviews which isn't surprising as he has 3700+ library holdings,passes WP:NAUTHOR in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 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 Adventist Health. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Ukiah Valley

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

This is a small local hospital that doesn't seem notable for anything. The only reference in the article is to a primary source and all I could find doing a search for them is run of the articles about how they are dealing with the Covid-19 thing in local papers. Which is extremely trivial and likely most hospitals are getting coverage for. Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Adventist Health. Rathfelder (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Against merging would water down the article Adventist Health. To find information for these hospitals you have to look the former name and current name.Catfurball (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird since I looked the hospitals up under their other names and it gave me a bunch of results for the current one. Importantly, what sources there was under the old names were completely garbage. So, I seriously question the truthfulness of your comment. Otherwise, provide some secondary reliable in-depth sources to back it up with. Also, it would be pretty hard IMO to water down articles that are only 1 paragraph long if even that. Even less if we get rid of the information that cites primary sources, because that's literally all there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would be the best thing to do with this hospital article, it will most likely will never be a notable hospital. Catfurball (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to strike out your first vote or it will screw up the bot that counts vote numbers. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adventist Health. I don't see anything worth merging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 3 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste Technologies

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

So! This article looks beautifully referenced and clearly notable, if you're not paying attention to the content of the references. But if you are, you can see it's a pile of hogwash.

CBC: Trivial mention, article substantially about something else.
Forbes 1 and 2: Forbes contributors are not reliable sources.
Financial Post, BNN: Appear lovely but on inspection both are "provided by Market One Media Group for commercial purposes," so that's a big nope.
Oracle Dispatch: Low-audience blogazine. This is actually one of the better sources, which is sad, and doesn't bode well.
MarketScreener: Business listing/stats site. Not in-depth content.
SmartCompany: Tagline is that they cater "to Australia's entrepreneurs, small and medium business owners and business managers." In other words, this is a targeted-audience publication, not indicative of general-audience notice the way WP:N demands.
Microcap Daily: Again, targeted-audience blogazine: "Micro Cap Daily is an equity news and research organization focusing on micro and small cap companies." No.
Proactive Investors: Scroll on down to the bottom of the page and you'll see "This record is published on behalf of Namaste Technologies Inc, which is a paid client of ProactiveInvestors." Once again, nope.

What do we get when we put this all together? A bunch of junk that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, that's what. And trying to search for anything better is a wash, because every hit I found was more of the same: churnalism, low-rent blogazines, and paid content. It's time for this article to go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the analysis of the sources, which don't seem to pass muster, along with the fact that I couldn't find anything that did when I looked them up. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there is other media coverage from national newspapers:

To be fairer notability isn't just based on "coverage." It has to not be trivial topics as defined by WP:NCORP. Which all of the sources you refrenced could likely be considered as. Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Adamant1. Java Hurricane 04:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk📧) 19:57, 28 July 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 Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Stephen's Secondary School (Bowmanville)

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. No references. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 17 July 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) 00:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2007-03 ✗ deleted

redirect or Merge to Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board. Redirecting or merging to the school boards article seems to be the preferred thing to do in these situations. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board based on past common outcomes with this sort of unsourced article about a school, per Adamant1. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Draft:Chowkidekhi. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chowkidekhi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. May be a good idea to merge, also. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears to be equivalent to a Mahallah, per this source from Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, officially divided into two Purba (East) and Pashchim (West) Chowkidekhi. Google search does provide widespread mentions. Pinging @UserNumber: to clarify as he is more knowledgeable about Sylhet-related affairs. --Zayeem ^(talk) 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move - Although it is a very historically relevant area, I am not currently planning to work on Chowkidekhi at the moment. It could be moved to a draft for now, and once I have time I shall add more information (with sources) about Chowkidekhi. UserNumber (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Per the comment above this by the creator of the article who wishes to work on it more when they have the time. Plus, it seems like there are sources out there about it. So, I see no reason not to. If it just duplicates another article or whatever can be decided later once it's in a state to go back to the main article space. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of IBA official cocktails. Wikipedia currently has no subject notability guidelines for food and drink. WP:IAR arguments do get through AfD occasionally, but it requires 1) a very good explanation why; and 2) the !votes to make it happen. TonyBallioni's point arguably meets #1, but a 6:5 tally in favor of keeping just isn't enough to override standard practice. That said, there is a tiny amount of verifiable information available, so including it in a list is suitable. List of IBA official cocktails is not currently in a state to accept that content, but there is WP:NODEADLINE and the article can stay up until the list is converted into such a state. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy Fifty

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

Non-notable cocktail. A BEFORE search I did found no evidence of GNG-passing coverage. Java Hurricane 05:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems very notable and well covered, it is one of the IBA cocktail, what is a before search? Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nominator probably means WP:BEFORE. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an IBA official cocktail. It may not be very old (created in 2004), but if the IBA considers it important enough for making it well-known beyond the London bar where it was created, I'd say it is a notable enough recipe. Kumorifox (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, being an IBA cocktail may indicate wikinotability but its not a certainly, that said diffords goes into its history/origins, and forbes lists it but is this enough? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Keep, because it is an official IBA drink, which pretty much by definition makes it notable (at least outside WP — and no, we're not going to find significant RS coverage of any cocktail, I don't think). Weak, because it's on IBA's 'new era' list, which is a euphemism for 'not exactly a classic'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Forbes article referenced above is a "Forbes Contributor" article and therefore unreliable (rendering it irrelevant for notability purposes); see WP:FORBESCON. The Difford's link is not in any way "significant" coverage for GNG purposes because it simply lists the recipe with only sentences of commentary. A search indicated no sources that conferred notability. @DoubleGrazing: I don't know whether it's true or not that individual cocktails rarely have RSes about them, but that doesn't mean that they are subject to lower notability standards than articles on other subjects. To the closer: I ask for an exceptional third relist rather than a close because the previous discussion in this AfD did not substantially discuss the notability of the subject for Wikipedia purposes (according to GNG, which is the prevailing standard) and was therefore not policy based. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely per L235. Arguing that all "IBA Official Cocktails" are notable is a bit of an IAR rationale, and I don't find it persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by delete voters. Mainly the sources aren't good enough to pass WP:GNG and arguing that all "IBA Official Cocktails" are notable is a non-starter IMO. So, there's no reason to have an article about this IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the rationale that it's an IBA official cocktail to be a good rationale for keeping. Wikipedia works best when we have clear bright line standards for inclusion or exclusion and have precedents, rather than using the GNG, which is an abysmally written guideline that can mean whatever you want it to mean depending on if you want to delete or include something. If I want to go off of that, being an IBA recognized cocktail arguably is a source as they didn't create it (a London bar did.) If you want more references to it see it being referenced as common knowledge isn National Geographic UK, and a quick Google News search sees it referenced off-hand in multiple publications, and Google Books shows it included in cocktail recipes from multiple publishers.
Additionally, despite the claim above, of course we have different standards for notability for different types of subjects. BLPs and corporations are the highest, bus stops and train stations the lowest. One of the other areas where we traditionally have lower standards is food and drink. That's because food and drink, unless directly connected to a commercial establishment, are next to impossible to harm Wikipedia's reputation, the subject, or provide inappropriate information to the reader. We claim that the GNG is universal, but it isn't and it has never been applied uniformly, and Wikipedia would be worse off if it was, because different topics should have different standards that allow us to incorporate the articles that are significant within the topic area, while also not being a random collection of information.
Here's the ultimate question: does keeping this cause any damage to Wikipedia? The answer in my mind is clearly "no". This isn't a BLP, so we don't need heavy sourcing. There's no promotionalism going on. We're often used as a reference for readers on different types of food and alcohol, and even if the information we contain is small, keeping it can be used as a jumping off point for others. In this case, it links to the IBA site, which having spent the last 10 minutes searching for in Google, I couldn't on my own. Maybe I'm a bit weird because I'm a fan of fancy drinks and I edit Wikipedia, but I quite frequently search for cocktails on this site as my first stop, and use it as a point of reference.
I find it useful, and think there's no harm. The group that "regulates" cocktails internationally has deemed it important enough to be official. I think that's a significantly more objective standard than the GNG, and is more useful to the people we serve. The GNG is a guideline, and we can include things that we think will aid our readers in their understanding of the world if there's also nothing negative about including it, even if it does not meet the GNG. I see absolutely nothing harmful here, and I see benefit to readers. So keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you could really put all that aside and just compare it to other articles on cocktails in Wikipedia. For instance compare Bloody Mary (cocktail) to this one. No one is arguing that "cocktails" aren't notable, they are arguing this one isn't. The article for it is essentially a listing of ingredients. Which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. It doesn't even say what the history of the cocktail is. Again, compare that to Bloody Mary (cocktail). Which actually has encyclopedic content. Even if you want to disregard the GNG you still can't argue this article serves any purpose that isn't better served on a million other websites. Whereas, Bloody Mary (cocktail) the article actually fits the purpose of Wikipedia. So cool, have an articles about cocktails. Whatever, but it should at least be more then a list of recipe ingredients. There is a basic thing underlining Wikipedia that it isn't a directory. Which comes before the notability guidelines IMO. Although they shouldn't be thrown out though just because this doesn't meet their standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right now it sucks, but you could add sourced information stating when it was created, by whom, etc. Enough to bring it to stub level. I agree that NOT is above N, and I think that's a fair argument. I don't really find the GNG arguments strong, though, because like I said: we don't enforce it uniformly and for a lot of stuff we do rely on the "do people who are involved in the area outside of Wikipedia consider this significant?" standard, which is what the GNG is trying to approximate. For cocktails, IBA official status is as close as it comes to that for cocktails and if I really wanted to Wikilawyer it into GNG I could, but I'd rather be intellectually honest about it and say that in this case, using the GNG as an approximation of off-wiki importance fails, so we should use a better approximation: the judgement of the professional organization for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info on the drink's origins. A couple of the sources are admittedly a bit flaky, but The Caterer is a leading HoReCa trade magazine so should be pretty reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time is a charm. Keep arguments based on some form of official recognition surely have a policy basis. Linking that would help the closer. If there is no consensus on that argument then more detail how this is sourced would help
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find myself in agreement with TonyBallionis rationale. If the IBA consider it significant it's hard to judge otherwise, I find this to be an excellent indication of notability. PainProf (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking more closely at the IBA official cocktail list, it seems to be a problematic litmus test for encyclopedic notability. Spicy Fifty specifically appears to be classified as a "New Era drink", which according to the IBA is a category that is "periodically revised" and reflects promising new recipes, "fashions of the moment". Indeed, drinks in this category do not remain here indefinitely—in 2019, the list looked like this, and some of the drinks there no longer appear on the current list (e.g. Kamikaze and Dirty Martini). This seems to indicate that these drinks actually lost their IBA "official" status in the 2020 revision, which is problematic because we consider notability on Wikipedia to be permanent. A more convincing argument would be inclusion in the "Unforgettables" and "Contemporary Classics" IBA categories, the members of which do seem to stay in those categories indefinitely and include obviously notable cocktails like Margarita and Bloody Mary.
More importantly, the keep arguments ask us to disregard WP:GNG for this subject, but I see no policy-based reason for doing so. The community has adopted no guideline or even precedent which states that cocktails are presumed to be notable because they are IBA official, so we fall back onto GNG. "I find it useful, and think there's no harm" is not a valid keep rationale because of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cocktail reference. Perhaps GNG is an "abysmally written guideline", but a single AfD here cannot override that general guideline (WP:CONLIMITED). At the end of the day, the fundamental principle here is the following: we presume that a subject is worth writing about if reliable sources have found the subject worth writing about. There are some sources that mention the subject in passing, and a Google Books search seems to find it included in at least one cocktail recipe book, e.g. [6] (p. 153). Unfortunately, this kind of coverage isn't enough to support standalone notability, but it may be enough to include it in a list (perhaps List of IBA official cocktails could be refactored with brief descriptions of each drink, instead of just being a list of links). Overall, the arguments for deleting this article appear to be stronger than those for keeping it. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per my findings, this is a generic informational article having Reliable resources. And agreed with TonyBallioni DMySon 08:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Article can be expanded to some extent. (non-admin closure) SerChevalerie (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urs festival, Ajmer

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

Stub that does not meet WP:GNG, proposing to Merge and Redirect to Ajmer Sharif Dargah. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant event attended by millions of people from accross India and overseas countries.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:34, 25 July 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. Majority consensus leaning towards a Keep (non-admin closure) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martha West

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

Non-notable academic fails WP:GNG. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 20:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her work has had an important impact on society, particularly establishing UCD's Family Protection and Legal Assistance Clinic, which continues today to provide legal services to the community and educational opportunities for law students. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first of all there's zero evidence her work has had a an important impact on "society" (whatever that means in this context) and even if it has she still has to pass the notability guidelines everyone else does. Second, the she fails WP:GNG due to the lack of secondary in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. What little sourcing there is that's not primary is only brief passing mentions of her. Finally she hasn't been elected to a high up academic position or met anything else that would allow her to meet the notability criteria for WP:WNPROF. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1:, "impact on society" was my regrettable shorthand for WP:NPROF criteria #1, #4, and #7. Multiple RS cited in the article describe West's research and her reports, conducted beginning in the 1990s, about hiring of women faculty. Being named general counsel of AAUP probably also matches #6, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be false to say the references are describing West's research or reports. It looks most of them have nothing to do with either. For instance one is about a local Women’s History Month luncheon where she was a guest speaker and the most cited source is a short bio from either the college she graduated from or works at. Neither of those are about her "research and reports." Also, it's questionable that her being named general counsel of the AAUP passes WP:NPROF because it's more similar to a teachers union or school organization then a high up "academic" position or even "academic society." For instance the AAUP"s goal is to "advance academic freedom and shared governance, to define fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, and to ensure higher education's contribution to the common good." Which is extremely general. Whereas, an academic society "is an organization that exists to promote an academic discipline, profession, or a group of related disciplines such as the arts and science." Since the AAUP isn't promoting any of those things, I don't consider it an academic society. Therefore, I don't think her being named general counsel to it passes WP:NPROF. That's just my interpretation though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her research and reports are major topic of these RS cited in the article: UCSD Guardian,^[1] Black Issues in Higher Education,^[2]

East Bay Times,^[3] and The San Francisco Chronicle.^[4] HouseOfChange (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Local newspaper coverage of research she did at a university in the area where the newspapers are printed doesn't show her research has a wide impact in her field of study. Local newspapers cover local things. That's how they work. My local newspaper covers research done by my local community colleges archaeological department all the time. That doesn't mean my community colleges archaeological department should have an article in Wikipedia or that their research has had any kind of impact anywhere outside of with local history buff. Nothing against them or anything. The SF/Bay Area isn't "society" either. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment UCSD Guardian is published in the San Diego area, not the Bay area. Diverse: Issues In Higher Education (formerly Black Issues in Higher Education] is published in Fairfax, VA. See also this NYT article I just discovered, discussing her work: "But Martha West, the lead author of the new report, who has worked on the issue for years, said that as the number of women earning Ph.D.'s increased, the rate of female faculty hiring should be growing much faster than currently."^[5] Coverage of West's work is different from the kind of local coverage you describe. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but two of the sources you cited were local, which was half of them, and those where the ones I was talking about. I wasn't talking about the other ones, obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Federis, Martha (May 26, 2005). "Study finds lack of UC female faculty" (PDF). UCSD Guardian. Retrieved July 18, 2020. West and several others began to raise concerns over the hiring issue with the California Legislature. She and her colleagues approached State Senator Jackie Speier (D - San Francisco/San Mateo), who held hearings during three consecutive years in 2001, 2003, and 2003. The report also details the testimonies of professors from various campuses during the hearings.
^ "UC Hiring Fewer Women Professors after Prop. 209". Black Issues in Higher Education. March 1, 2001. Retrieved July 18, 2020. The University of California has hired fewer female faculty following passage of anti-affirmative action ballot measure Proposition 209, creating a gender gap that needs bridging, women professors from across the 10-campus system said recently. 'We are in serious discrimination mode at the university,' says UC Davis law professor Martha West, one of more than a dozen professors who spoke at a state Senate hearing on UC hiring.
^ Maitre, Michelle (May 19, 2005). "Study says not enough UC female faculty". East Bay Times. Retrieved July 18, 2020. More than 45 percent of the doctorate degrees awarded in 2003 went to women, said Martha West, a UC Davis law professor and lead author of the report, 'Unprecedented Urgency: Gender Discrimination in Faculty Hiring at the University of California.' 'If women are going to be left out of this 10-year hiring surge, it means we're not going to have representative women on the faculty for the next 20 to 30 years,' West said.
^ Schevitz, Tanya (May 18, 2005). "Study finds UC lags in women on faculty / Hiring levels lower than in mid-'90s". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved July 18, 2020. At stake is nothing less than the orientation of the nation's higher education system for a generation to come, because UC is in the middle of a 10- year plan of replacing thousands of retiring faculty, said UC Davis employment law Professor Martha West, one of the authors of the report titled 'Unprecedented Urgency: Gender Discrimination in Faculty Hiring at the University of California.'
^ Lewin, Tamar (December 7, 2018). "University of California Faulted on Hiring of Women". NYT. Retrieved July 25, 2020. A new report by four professors at the University of California at Davis has found that despite an unusual hiring wave and a steady increase in the number of women in the Ph.D. applicant pool, the University of California still lags in hiring women...Martha West, the lead author of the new report, who has worked on the issue for years, said that as the number of women earning Ph.D.'s increased, the rate of female faculty hiring should be growing much faster than currently.

Keep. First of all, the nom made no case whatsoever for deletion. When presented with an article that is adequately cited on its face, the simple assertion "not notable," without any supporting analysis, should result in the AFD being speedy closed. Second, the single delete !voter makes no real effort to assess the subject's notability (no effort, for example, to assess the subject's citation record) and quite incorrectly argues that the bulk of the existing sourcing is primary, when it plainly isn't. In any event, the article shows enough reliable sourcing to make a prima facie case for notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on WP:NACADEMIC#C1 for 364 citations counts for 1 book and WP:NACADEMIC#C2 awards (unsure about strength of awards). Earthianyogi (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the book is co-authored with John W. Curtis so it is more like ~180 number. The rationale for my division: I am an academic myself and if I co-author something, I get only half the credit I'd get for solo paper within my university internal point system. It is logical do divide citation numbers by the numbers of co-autors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I agree with the idea, it is not yet part of the WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. Her books are widely available in libraries around the world and combined with the awards, the subject appears notable. Earthianyogi (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on citations, and coverage in UCSD Guardian and Black Issues in Higher Education. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:18, 29 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Daňo

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

Non-notable journalist. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet actual notability guidelines as either a journalist or a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:MILL and WP:GNG. Absolutely unknown journalist; he has half of the number of followers on twitter that I do, and I'm far from notable. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 31 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rasheed Khan

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

Unsourced since 2015, no indication of individual notability, very likely created by subject or a relative. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. --Devokewater @ 00:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an un-sourced article on a non-notable banker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to support him for WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article without any citation. fails GNG. DMySon 08:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. Unsourced, and just not notable. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 31 July 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 current Maraji. Consensus that this person is not notable, redirecting per AtD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yadollah Duzduzani

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

WP:N. No reliable and independent source was found for him and deleted in fawiki as well. Ladsgroup^overleg 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Nika2020 (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. He might be notable. The problem is that it's not properly sourced. When independent sources are found, then it can be re-created. Ping me if you find anything in English. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks the sources that would be needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_current_Maraji can be recreated once sources are found, may exist based off position. PainProf (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Art High school of Kermanshah

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

WP:N Also deleted in fawiki Ladsgroup^overleg 18:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is nothing in the article to satisfy WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arthur Bigsworth. Perhaps selectively, and improving the content in the process - I note that the somewhat lengthy article does not explain how exactly this device works and what the point of it was. Sandstein 10:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bigsworth chart board

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

User:Samf4u attempted to create this AfD, but did not complete it. I saw that User:BilCat also supported such an AfD. Personally, I am neutral; the supporters of deletion will have to provide the reasons for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:A notable piece of equipment.. that all who served on WWII and before larger RAF aircraft would have been familiar with. More could be done with some more research.The IWM has material on it. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC))(I created this little stub in the hope of finding out more)[reply]

@Msrasnw: If you do not know that sufficient sources exist and merely hope they might, then creating an article, stub or no, is not the way ahead. If you just need to buy some time you can create a draft in the Draft: namespace. If your provenance is more speculative, you can create it as a subpage in your own user space, buit even that is subject to eventual deletion if it stagnates for too long. If you wish to keep working on it, you might like to move it to one of those safer homes before it gets erased from memory. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Steelpillow: for your reply ... I think we disagree on the way things work or should work .. and your view is probably now the majority view. I thought and think this device is notable. I had seen a picture of them and wanted to find out more and thought Wikipedia ought have a page. It didn't - no it does... perhaps it won't. Starting such a page might get others to help add things .. ( My guess is they used to be really well known - 1918-1940s and J.W. Dunne would probably have known of the Bigsworth. I think there are sufficient sources and it should be OK ... some other pages Appleyard Course and Distance Computer and the Douglas Combined Protractor and Parallel Rule could also be nice ones to have. The Bigsworth gets a nice - but little - mention in the book about Moffat and his observer Dusty Miller sinking the Bismarck from their Swordfish. There is a nice picture of the device in the US document .. that I was thinking to try and download but will perhaps wait in case I am wasting my time. Anyway best wishes... and it was nice to find out about Dunne and I did a quick page on Dr Mary Cleugh.. but someone will probably want to delete that too. Anyway why would anyone want this page deleting is something I find confusing.But best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per the sources cited in the article and found by the searches above. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability due to lack of significant coverage that is more than a trivial mention IMHO. Apologize for not properly completing the AfD due to a real life issue. - Samf4u (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge with Arthur Bigsworth, per Retswerb. Insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. The cited sources give only a brief passing mention. No independent sources (even taken together) appear to give sufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. It's just a brand of navigator's clipboard. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC) [Update] But it does have enough coverage to warrant mention in its inventor's bio. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the last two statements with the sources that I cited in this article before they were made. They each contain a pretty full description of this device. That is significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, significant coverage means reliable, secondary sources with detailed coverage. See WP:GNG policy page, and WP:EMSC essay for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And those are reliable secondary sources with detailed coverage, as described on those pages. What makes you think they are not? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do not devote a significant amount of content to the device. They have very little to say about it, far less than a full chapter. By contrast for example the Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054 has no books devoted entirely to it either, but it does have whole chapters and more in a good many, and also whole articles in magazines. We do not even have an article for navigational chart boards in general; aspiring to one for a particular brand is not really tenable. My best suggestion would be to add some mention of chart boards and their use to Navigational instrument and/ or Navigation#Methods of navigation, see if you can make that stick. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Does not meet WP:GNG. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just Googled and fond enough references about Bigsworth chart board. DMySon 08:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would care to share them with Wikipedia? I too googled but found nothing beyond the trivial. Per WP:PROVEIT, the burden of proof is on those who claim such sources exist, not on those who doubt. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more refs and the Swordfish story and ref to that - which might help some .... but not others who - would prefer not to delete. this. I think it is a design rather than a brand and its production in "substantial quantities" and widespread nature and longevity of use are important for notability.(Msrasnw (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]
And none appear to give more than passing mention, they do not establish WP:NOTABILITY per Wikipedia policy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Arthur Bigsworth. Probably worth a mention, but as stated above does not merit its own article. Retswerb (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Arthur Bigsworth - Certainly not worth an article on its own per WP:GNG. - BilCat (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging with the page on Arthur Bigsworth would unbalance that page unless it was just a comment and therefore would be likely to mean we would lose most of the information from here. (Msrasnw (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Kimmins

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

not my field, but almost exclusively documented to IMDB DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a biography of a living person that has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 27 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine "Jem" Miller (singer)

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Furthermore she also doesn’t satisfy WP:SINGER. A before search only links me to her social media account & her Spotify page. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 18:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely non-notable singer with no coverage indicating WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG are met. Wikipedia is not for promotion. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable singer. No coverage, no reliable sources. And the "sources" in the article... "Official Site" and "Stream/Buy"... oh my god. I don't have any words. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is way below the level we need for a pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not real references. May be a case of poorly sourced. Requires proper rewriting. Until then, delete is an optuon here. My opinion anyway Jokejust1000 (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 00:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Developers

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORG. A before search only links to websites where organizations upload their profile & services. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 17:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of significant coverage fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i found this profile which shouldn't be counted as a "reliable source", as Economic Times is a business-related newspaper which keeps company's "profile record" on their website. Therefore, the non-notable article in question lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete oh. please. what are we even discussing? Light2021 (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable spamcruft per nom. ——Serial 09:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt. It should have gone WP:A7 & WP:G11 but, now that we're here, having WP:G4 available may be useful later. The persistent sockpuppetry & vandalism on this AFD shows that some salt is needed. Cabayi (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Draft:Alejandro Developers too. Cabayi (talk) 10:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have qualified under A7 as it makes no claims of importance, but not under G11 as the content is not exclusively promotional. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for my tuppence worth. Straight up native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 14:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable company, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have nothing to add. Glades12 (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in article space. Calcium chloride may be needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, axe the draft too. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame de la Bonne Nouvelle (Ladies' College)

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources for this school, nor anything indicating notability. It is also a common name, so it was hard sorting through which sources were even talking about this school. My French is basically nonexistent as well, which doesn't help. If you do find sources please update accordingly! Awsomaw (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Awsomaw (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the first two sentences of the nom. If this school really is notable, someone will have to find sources to support that. The article can be re-created later if the sources are found at a later date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 26 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Shah

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

The references which are provided doesn't seem to be passing WP:GNG, Fails wp:SIGCOV too. Dtt1^Talk 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited the details and references which were not 100% accurate and only mentioned details and references which are publicly visible..References and details were extracted from various sources like Dui Rupaiyan, Kutu Ma Kutu. I am doing my research for more evidence for this article. I am still learning the ropes.

I hope you will reconsider this deletion. Thank you. Happy Editing! SURYA (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG (WP:SIGCOV is literally the same thing, by the way). Fails WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE as well. Obviously WP:TOOSOON. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not at a level to establish a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An obvious TOOSOON. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happybean

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

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:32, 25 July 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 (WP:NPASR). Anyone may feel free to merge the material if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lyceum of the Philippines University–Cavite

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

Quick search does not provide sufficient articles to establish notability. Self-published sources are also in use, which could probably sound as a promotion. HiwilmsTalk 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lyceum of the Philippines University, as a branch campus. BD2412 T 01:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonpreet Jawanda

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

Appear to have played some minor supporting roles in major productions. Almost all the current sources are name checks and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG and looks like WP:TOOSOON. GSS ^💬 06:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 06:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater 16:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruta del Sol (motor race)

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

I could find sources (mainly primary) to confirm existence, but not to confirm meeting any part of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dondi Ledesma

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

I couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. He has worked with notable musicians, but I don't think he is notable. Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:31, 25 July 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 political parties in Wales. Valid alternative to deletion proposed, and functionally has the same impact. No reason to prolong this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gwlad Gwlad

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. The citations here prove that the party exists without proof of notability, as per WP:GNG and ORG guidelines. Usefulness is not a valid criteria for retaining an article. No notable achievements prior to, or following, elections. doktorb _words^deeds 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the party's participation in election is covered by the news media, making it a recognized one for inclusion. So, it should be redirected to the List of political parties in Wales. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:29, 25 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narine Arakelian

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

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO and whatever one can add. As a nominator, I cannot comprehend and categorize this entity. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NOTSPAM. I was about to soft delete it, but as it's pure promo and really bad, don't think the option of someone getting it back is a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater @ 20:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST, and WP:NOTPROMO. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being part of a national entry in the Venice biennale is a major accomplishment, and she's done it multiple times. There's plenty of media coverage for this giving her a pass of both WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Mostly it's about her work in the 58th biennale [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] but to save this from BIO1E here's a story from earlier: [13]. Probably if I could search and read Armenian I'd find a lot more. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Vote withdrawn - When this was first listed, I thought it should be deleted, ~~but David Eppstein has shown that despite the article's weaknesses and promotional tone, she is indeed notable, and passes GNG and NARTIST.~~ Netherzone (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my !vote. After looking at this article and checking the sourcing again and again, and it seems like it is a case of one notable show (and it's a good show, the VB, however she was not the only artist to represent Armenia, there were four others), everything else about the article seems unverifiable, bloggish, advertorial, PRish. I now think that it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally agree that the Venice Biennale is a clear indicator of notability, as is Manifesta. It should be possible to find sources that can sustain an article about an artist who participated in such an event. In this case, it's not so obvious. Some of the sources are absolutely horrendous. this was clearly written by a PR agent for example (I have evidence). Even after reading the article several times, I still struggle to understand what her work is, and what she actually showed where. It's a terrible mess. I'd support deletion because it is such a load of PR, but there is some underlying notability. Pretty much all the sources would have to be replaced though, and a thorough vetting of the claims needs to happen. A very commonly used promotional tactic is to claim someone exhibited at the Biennale when they exhibited during, but not in the Biennale (as is the case here too, in one instance). A very reluctant keep, premised on a really, really hard look and firm culling of promo, deception and a clear summary of what actual work she made. Vexations (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting.... I did some googling and noticed that she was part of a "Collateral event" for Manifesta XII[14] which are a group of 71 events running parallel to the Manifesta 12 biennial that were selected from an international open call. I'm guessing that that is not the main exhibition that is curated. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 27 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Thomas

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

It does not look to me as if this journalist, writer and publisher meets WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The coverage is book reviews. I have not been able to find any additional references to add. (Edited to add: I realise book reviews do count towards notability, but it looks as if two of the reviews are blogposts, one is a deadlink and I'n not entirely sure of the WP:RSness of the others.) Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 21:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order 66 (podcast)

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

Non-notable podcast. No evidence of GNG, and I cannot find significant, reliable and independent media coverage with a search. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Openfolio

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

Non-notable, now defunct, app. Of the cited sources, we have a few PR-esque investor sources which I'll ignore, Forbes contributors (which is unreliable per RS/PS), and some transcripts of CNBC mentioning it. A WP:BEFORE search brings up CNBC coverage, and some mentions on TechCrunch/CNN Money, but no significant coverage from the latter two. So that leaves 2 CNBC transcripts, which alone don't demonstrate passing of GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Teenager (Pakistan)

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

Not passing WP:GNG, not even notable not found any single references in Google but yet this is active on Wikipedia as of now. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 12:28, 18 July 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 July 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 15:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Heischober

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

non-notable "podcast personality" who's only claim to "fame" is being on Loveline a few times. Which seems to be only thing he's referenced in the article about. He did publish a few papers on substance abuse, but they didn't seem to have any serious impact anywhere. Which is probably verified by his only "notable" appearance seeming to be on Loveline. Anyway, from what I can tell there's nothing about him that would pass WP:BIO. The article seems to have b been created by a COI editor also. Adamant1 (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:24, 25 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison

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

clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Arguments of WP:SYNTH in the AfD mentioned in the nomination are moot, as this article does not use the information to form a new conclusion, it is simply an at-a-glance record of every club that has entered the Champions League. Sourcing is lacking, but it does exist and it will just take a bit of effort to put them all in. As the source I added for Manchester United shows, a year-by-year record of how each team does in the competition already exists, this article just puts them all together in one place so people can compare. Also, I am a professional football statistician and I have found this article (and the Europa League one) extremely useful in the last few years. – Pee Jay 14:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this kind of articles are useful and should continue to be on Wikipedia--Baronedimare (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I see article violates MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, fails WP:GNG and also appears to be WP:OR. Saying that, I also feel this article title is completely miss-labelled. As it's not truly a comparison article. On all of that I would say at current Delete WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOSTATS 3: Only statistics without context or explanation, this page has context. MOS:COLOR, many pages use the method used in this article eg. 2020 Formula One World Championship. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Govvy, please justify your view that this violates MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, WP:GNG and WP:OR. All of which seem clearly untrue to me, but without you outlining your concern it is difficult to rebuff Jopal22 (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't see GNG much a problem now, however, the font size and colourisation are clearly issues with the visually impaired readers, I don't know why you can't see that. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I disagree font size and colourisation are clearly issues. The color is not the only method used to convey important information, and you can read the table without using color. This is in line with MOS:COLOR. In any case font size and color are not justifications for deletion as this discussion is about, that is a separate discussion about improving the page. Does this mean you withdraw the deletion proposal? Jopal22 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are you talking about, I am colour blind and I need to put the text size to ctrl+3, it completely fails MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS. Also, the table goes way out of proportion when I have to increase the size. Govvy (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply But you don't need to know the colours to know what the table is showing. e.g. You can tell Barcelona won the Champions League in 05-06 because there is a "C" in the cell, and alternatively because the cell is dark green. Or are you suggesting the dark green colour makes the "C" unreadable? Either way WP:ACCESS issues are not a reason for deletion. Jopal22 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are on about, there is just a dark colour cell for Barcelona. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Okay! Well it sounds like we just have to do a WP:ACCESS improvement of the article, which I am sure people will be happy to do? Below is the table key, with an extra column with colour removed. Let us know what colours work, and what doesn't and we can fix it Jopal22 (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C	C	Champion
F	F	Runner-up
SF	SF	Semi-finals
QF	QF	Quarter-finals
R16	R16	Round of 16
GS2	GS2	Second group stage
GS	GS	Group stage
•		Did not participate

I see Runner Up all the way down fine, there is a C in the top it seems I can't see... o well... :/ Anyway, this is an AfD, these things should be done on a talk page somewhere else. We are getting off-topic here. Govvy (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a reason for deletion, but you brought it up as a reason, so I responded to try and reach some consensus. You have reeled off a lot of Wikipedia policy, without fleshing out the issue, and when you do all of which has bee rebuffed or is n/a. I am at a loss to know what your issue still is, and it seems you simply don't like the pages and are finding a reason to delete, rather than having a genuine complaint. It's quite tiresome to converse in such a way Jopal22 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:

WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.

MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.

WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.

WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.

WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines.

Jopal22 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In line with the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison this is OR and SYNTH, unless these charts can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party. Also wouldn't it be hard to verify this without re-creating the entire chart? How would I check this? Also this is has 67 links to a single website, 67 of which land on a 404 msg, and all of which contain curious-looking "referrer=" syntax in the URL, so it is unsourced as well. (For links to six more of these see this discussion) --Lockley (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like this is a useful article for comparisons and perhaps just needs more adequate sourcing provided. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:24, 31 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House of Loud

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

Defunct NN recording studio, fails the GNG and WP:ORG. A fair number of namedrops in reliable sources, but not a single bit of the "significant coverage" about the subject the GNG requires. The article lists a number of "notable bands" that recorded there, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Article notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 13:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator, as the studio has no reliable coverage as an entity in its own right, and it does not get to inherit notability from people who recorded there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 1 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zilliqa blockchain

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

Promotional article. No evidence of notability under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. One RS, and that's in a marketing trade paper. This is after the cryptocurrency blogs and claims cited to them were removed. WP:BEFORE shows nothing usable. Creator keeps adding crypto blogs, Forbes contributor blogs and other non-RSes to WP:REFBOMB the article. David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can be improved with valid references like this one. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshbieee (talk • contribs)

That's a crypto blog reprint, not an RS. You also added a paid promotional article from TechInAsia as a source - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard, thank you for your inputs and I must admit that, blockchains and cryptocurrencies are subjects I found recently interesting, even though I have many questions and doubts on how it function. Zilliqa Blockchain is the first standalone page I have created after browsing. Actually I thought, I have done an impressive debut in this category, but your edits have made me think otherwise. Anyway I won't be doing anymore edits in the same page and will seek opinion from you if I have points to ask here in this talk page only (if required). Rajeshbieee (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:RS. One of thousands of block-chainers. Badly sourced article. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Please keep the page as the subject has been working alongside the Singaporean government to launch its protocol and related projects. Will add accurate sources (not from cryptocurrency blogs) soon. 77.251.234.173 (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.234.173 (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Source Please check this source published from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) that explains in a case study how Zilliqa's technology can be used. https://www.mas.gov.sg/-/media/MAS/ProjectUbin/Project-Ubin-Phase-5-Enabling-Broad-Ecosystem-Opportunities.pdf?la=en&hash=91091CAD39265C03FF7A4253E70FBEE6D1177714 (Page 58-59) 77.251.234.173 (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.234.173 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a passing mention in a description of a vendor product. Can you find coverage that fits Wikipedia sourcing rules? - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TheDrum is "a marketplace for marketers", which means it isn't independent or reliable. The Forbes mention is a blurb, a lot of the crypto people land in 40-under-40 lists and such, I don't think that should be considered sufficient coverage. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - new sources. Please do look into these sources. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccacampbell1/2019/03/07/zilliqa-blockchain-a-z-kcl/#357104154d0e https://www.forbes.com/sites/ginaclarke/2019/02/12/future-of-blockchain-university-conference-that-aims-to-enlighten-a-generation/#1b6b4c851c84 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zilliqa-teaming-chainlink-build-data-142835160.html https://www.techinasia.com/xfers-launch-pilot-stablecoin-initiative-zilliqa https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/garage/blockchain-platform-zilliqa-teams-up-with-payments-startup-xfers. Could you also post the link of list of cryptocurrency websites/blogs, so that these sources can be excluded. 77.251.234.173 (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes contributor blogs, non-RS TechInAsia, crypto blog reprint. The Business Times might count as a source - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and prevent recreation, this is probably PR related. Total junk. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pheka Pheki

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

Non-notable movie. I saw very limited coverage of this movie, and even then it is in the form of passing mentions. Fails NFILM and GNG. Java Hurricane 12:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM concerns. The film that it inspired is notable but notability is not inherited. Spiderone 09:22, 26 July 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 general consensus is that he is not notable for an individual article. Given the various things he was involved in, it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect to just one of them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is contention on this point, I have changed the result to redirect, with discussion to continue at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 2#Jack Kister. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kister

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

NN engineer, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. No sources found (including those in the article) that provide more than namedrops, casual mentions and primary sources. Article notability tagged for over a decade. Deprodded ten years ago with the rationale "going to deprod out of a perhaps irrational belief i can find more...." We've waited ten years for more to be forthcoming; enough is enough. Ravenswing 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 11:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 11:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Java Hurricane 12:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's coverage back in the 1980s in works such as Microcomputer System Design and Applications and Microprocessor Development and Development Systems. We have continuing coverage in more recent works such as The System Engineers Handbook and High-speed Serial Buses in Embedded Systems. The worst case would be merger into a page about the subject's notable work such as VERSAbus. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would ask you which specifically of those works provides the "substantial coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires, except that you haven't yet responded to any such request from me with any answer beyond deflection, obfuscation and the like. (After all, that would require that you actually read these sources beforehand. For my part, I favor a definition of WP:BEFORE that is not "Ooooo, sourcez!!!" and grab the first half dozen hits off the list, without so much as bothering to examine them.) Had there been a valid redirect target, I'd have already done that. Ravenswing 18:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above are Andrew Special (tm) "term pops up in Google Books" hits - slight passing mentions. As are the sources provided in the article. Applicable policies include WP:LetterSaladBombingIsNoReplacementForSubstantialSources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Corporate press releases and a couple non-notable engineering handbooks mentioning him in passing does not make someone encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A couple of small mentions in nonsignificant works don't justify a wikipedia article. Galebazz (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into VMEbus, where his invention/standard is mentioned. I basically agree with Andrew but do not see the extensive coverage yet. I invite Galebazz, JoelleJay, Elmidae, JavaHurricane, and Devokewater to give this another look. Being so widely accredited with a major technological development, this is at the very least a probable search string. BTW, the three books (1982, 1992, and 2020 – speaking to the continued interest), were published by *major* publishing houses for the science/technology domain. gidonb (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The coverage not being there is what makes this a GNG fail -- a work being published by a large publishing house, as I'm sure you know, confers no waiver of the guideline -- and being a GNG fail, an article on the subject cannot be sustained. That being said, a merge isn't on, simply because there's not a clear redirect target; several potential ones are listed in the article, and I didn't redirect in the first place because of that. Beyond that, Kister being cited as the Inventor! is not borne out by the article itself, which cites numerous engineers and teams by name as making substantial contributions to the hardware. Ravenswing 14:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This "official response by the article's nominator" reads confused to me versus the article and my opinion. In any case, there is no need for arguing with each (!) single person here who reaches different conclusions. Instead, please concentrate on a better WP:BEFORE and do not WP:PROD when disagreement can be expected. 14:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD is, in fact, a discussion; if you're unwilling to discuss it, you shouldn't be at AfD. As far as when "disagreement can be expected," I'm no more of a psychic than the next person, figured -- perhaps naively -- that the purpose of WP:BEFORE is to identify sources that satisfy the GNG, and trusted in the good faith of other editors not to just throw up some source, any source, in defiance of the GNG's requirements. (That being said, would you care to identify which sources you found that provide significant coverage to the subject, if you believe that BEFORE was inadequately performed in this case?) Ravenswing 15:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should add my opinion to discussions. And yes, sometimes I get a question and am delighted to answer. As the nominator, you should not WP:BLUDGEON under every person's opinion who thinks differently with totally irrelevant information. It's annoying in the extreme. Arguments for the sake of arguments. For example, I count 4 times the mentioning of the WP:GNG under my opinion but if you would care to read that guideline you would immediately see that there is absolutely no relevance between the WP:GNG and what I wrote. This is not an invitation to bring other relevant or irrelevant stuff to my attention, just to do better next time! gidonb (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did get a question. Which you are ducking. Fair enough. Ravenswing 02:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not ducking. I always improve references immediately in the article. This article was no exception at all! I try not confront nominators with the sources they miss. Since I favor merging, the WP:GNG and sources do not matter whatsoever, per that very guideline. You try to waste people's time, to no avail. For me, it's all about the article space. Take a look at the article history and see what you can learn, if anything. There's no need for me to convince the nominator. Your intention to delete was clear from start. gidonb (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VMEbus Mentioned in the target article, a plausible search term and of course redirects are cheap. Not broad enough coverage in RSs for a stand-alone article. Pavlor (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into VMEbus, unless additional independant sources significant content on the subject are found to warrant standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant job that qualifies him to have a page. Nika2020 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE Society

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

I can't actually find any real, independent, reliable sources that discuss this organization in a meaningful way. The article is a COI/sock nightmare from the get-go, and you can go back through the history if you think I cut too much--but you won't find the kind of sourcing that proves notability per WP:CORP. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 12:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT and exists only because the organisation itself created it. If there is real notability, let someone without a COI write a new article. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:GNG. --Fish and karete (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Striking sock !vote[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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mucopolysaccharide–cartilage complex

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

Exists and has some basic mentions, but I don't see it passing the threshold of WP:NOTABILITY in any way. Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MEDRS. Mccapra (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above; nothing found but casual mentions and namedrops. Ravenswing 15:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nada found, no WP:MEDRS sources exist. PainProf (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Bruccoleri

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

The page was previously deleted under G12, and currently its completely Promotional Article written like a Bio Data. Dtt1^Talk 09:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 09:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 09:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 09:47, 25 July 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 Karađorđević dynasty. If the redirect is inappropriate, it can be nominated at WP:RFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Yugoslav throne

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1945. This article does not contain an independent source and looks like POW and unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the Kingdom itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a line of succession to a kingdom that became defunct in 1945 and was replaced by country that became defunct in 1992, the largest constituent of which having been further balkanized in the interim. Restoring the Yugoslav crown would require unifying and monarchizing like seven different countries that hate each other, so support for such a movement is definitely fringe at best and violently disputable at worst. JoelleJay (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Karađorđević dynasty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge instead of, say, redirect? What content should be merged? TompaDompa (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In this case all Orders of succession of defunct Kingdoms (Romania, Greece, Russia, Bulgaria ect.) ^{Snake bgd} 21:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Karađorđević dynasty. Or perhaps the title should be renamed to contain the term Serbian throne, since the Karadjordjevic dynasty ruled Serbia before the creation of Yugoslavia, and Serbia is often considered the successor of Yugoslavia. Андрејевић (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Serbia does not have a line of succession (nor does Yugoslavia, since Yugoslavia does not exist anymore) because Serbia hasn't existed as a sovereign state with a monarchy since 1918. Also, what information would you merge? The line of succession is for all practical purposes fictitious, not to mention WP:Unverifiable WP:OR. TompaDompa (talk) 12:00, 1 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former throne of Hyderabad

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

This semi-independent kingdom has been defunct since the unification of India. This unsourced article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but original research -- Ab207 (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the princely state itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is basically just an entry in a user-generated genealogy site. Not encyclopedic at all. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 25 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the former Hanoverian throne

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

This kingdom has been defunct since 1866. This article looks like unverifiable original research, including about the supposed royal status of living persons (WP:BLP). See also WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Austro-Hungarian throne for a similar case. Norden1990 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Norden1990 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Poorly sourced, full of BLP violations, impossible to verify. Smeat75 (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON 6: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). It is impossible to attribute the current line of succession to this throne to WP:RELIABLE sources, because there is no current line of succession, because the Kingdom itself doesn't even exist anymore. TompaDompa (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Smeat. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and actually I think we should delete most of these articles on lines of succession to deposed monarchies for the same reasons, although we should retain articles on notable pretenders. PatGallacher (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of article that could easily be improved by a little bit of research consulting reliable sources. Why did Queen Victoria not ascend the Hanoverian throne, the Brunswick succession question from 1884 until 1913, even recently succession questions get reported (as reliably sourced in the article) by the head of the House refusing to dynastically recognise his sons marriage. Unfortunately across topics like deposed royals there is no interest from certain editors in actually improving any articles, this is obvious rather than replacing self published websites with reliable sources (which could easily be done by doing a Google Books search) the lazy/easy route of removing the SPS and citation request gets added instead. The only interest is in deleting or renaming article titles they don’t like (i.e. making up names). - dwc lr (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unrecoverable, per everyone else. --JBL (talk) 20:58, 30 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CK Khai (Cin Kim Khai)

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

Non-notable singer-songwriter. The article doesn't seem to be satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Most of the references are local blogs with dubious editorial oversight and do not meet verifiability. Even this references do not support his biography, career and discography. Phyo WP (message) 08:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Phyo WP (message) 08:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I concur with nominator, the lack of comprehensive coverage in reliable sources means this fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One problem here is that the article does not give the native Burmese spelling of his name, which could be used in a search for media coverage. He could have coverage in his own country, but if so it will not be under the English spelling of his name. With that being said, this article does have Burmese text for the titles of several of his albums. I did searches for all the Burmese titles listed, and found that none of them have gotten beyond social media and streaming sites, and a few are mentioned briefly in local blogs. With all of his albums being unnoticed in reliable sources, we can assume that he is also unnoticed as a musician overall. With hundreds of songs and several books, but no media coverage, he is a non-notable bedroom hobbyist at best. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the original creator of this article made a mistake that he/she translates all song names and book names into Burmese language. Actually the person in this article is from one of 7 main ethnic groups of Myanmar, namely Chin. Chin people use their own language (Chin language) that was created by a British Missionary so based on English Alphabets. The creator of this article should have left all those Chin names without translating into Burmese and I have fixed it. When I made search with the original Chin names I found a lot of search results including songs, sermons and international tours which means this person is an influencing person for his own people, a legend who created several songs that are sung in every church of Chin People around the world (there are many Chin people in US, Australia, India, Malaysia and other countries too). Although Chin may be a small group of people compared to the world's whole population, we should respect what they value and treasure. And I can help improve the article. Nemkdim (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the search results using Burmese and Chin languages leads to Facebook, YouTube and local blogs which fails to satisfy WP:RS. --Phyo WP (message) 16:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My vote above was based on searches for the Burmese titles that Nemkdim says were illegitimate. I searched again under the corrected titles that are now in the article, but got the same type of results in social media and streaming sites (though a lot more YouTube videos this time), plus occasional unreliable blogs. Those sparse blog entries don't indicate the widespread international influence claimed by Nemkdim. This still does not add up to the "significant" and/or "reliable" coverage rules at WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:BLPSOURCES, which are the most relevant Wikipedia policies for this situation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doomsdayer and Phyo, could you please try searching by "CK Khai on Spotify", "CK Khai on iTunes", "CK Khai on Amazon". I did try and found tracks listed in Discography section of this article on those music stores. I found "Zeisu Hi", "Psalm 138:6", "Lungmuan Na", "Kei Lel", "Aw Nem", "Mai Pha", "Tai Tampi", "ABC La", "Zua Aw" on Apple music and some others on Amazon and Spotify. I am adding this up because those music stores are very strict to and serious about the credibility of the artists and the originality of their art works. Only the original creators of those masterpieces can use these platforms. Thinking that might be a help for consideration. One more thing to consider (from my personal opinion) is the all around development and digital literacy of the ethnic groups (Chin, in this case) when thinking about the sources. Music stores, social medias and streaming things might be the best things they know or they can do for now. To what extent we should be strict on the inclusion of this population and their participation in this community? Nemkdim (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to know that someone does not get a Wikipedia article just because they exist, or in the case of musicians, just because their material is available for streaming or retail. Phyo and I have already provided links to Wikipedia policies that dictate when a musician becomes eligible for an article here: WP:RS, WP:NMUSICIAN. and WP:BLPSOURCES. See also WP:EXIST, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:NOT. And finally, if knowledge of Myanmar's ethnic minorities and their cultures is being repressed, that is indeed a very unfortunate problem, but trying to promote unlucky entertainers in the English Wikipedia is not the solution, nor should it be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's fails WP:GNG. Shin Khant Maung (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not just a fame or popularity. What I see is that, while some popular people from Myanmar, even the second prize winners of a singing contest are getting in Wikipedia with a few references source like an interview video from YouTube, article about a legendary person from an ethnic group is receiving harsh comments. You probably have decided notability by just how well you know that person...Burmese Wikipedia editors from Myanmar are somewhat ignorant and less respectful to other minorities (ethnic groups) in Myanmar. At least you should have given constructive comments and encourage the article writers how to make this topic or article more acceptable in Wikipedia in the future...My last comment is, "notability/being noteworthy is not just a fame or popularity".. comment added by Maizinlat

My vote isn't not applicable on my personal. I don't want to vote to delete in any kind of articles.Especially,the articles that related to Myanmar. I understand that it's difficult to get a good article because we were spent our time and our mind on it . So,I tried to find the references to get a reliable reference.But I can't. I also ethnic. I so sorry.Shin Khant Maung (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nominator and the user who is arguing to keep is actually making a strong argument to delete, 'notability/being noteworthy is not just a fame or popularity.' You are partially correct, but fame or popularity helps because there are RS about individuals who have fame or a popular i.e. notable.VViking_TalkEdits 14:16, 27 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammed Hamza Ashraf Kichochawi

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

32 year old cleric. The son of Syed Mohammed Madni Ashraf and filling roles within his father's organization. Does not meet GNG. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This page should not be speedily deleted because, it is providing information about an important personality about whom people (particularly of the Indian subcontinent) are eager to know. As you described that “32 year cleric”, an Islamic Ischolar doesn’t become cleric with his age but with his Ilm, and you said that ‘’filling roles within his father's organization”, that’s true, he is vice president of Shaikhul Islam Trust, for this read references mentioning here- ^[2]^[3] ^[4] He is a great personality and a prominent muslim leader and he has a thousands of followers and Murids not only in India but worldwide. Further it may be very helpful for researchers in the field of mysticism, so this page should not be speedily deleted, and deletion tag should be removed immediately.Indimpdd (talk) 07:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-zilliqa-blockchain-could-change-enterprise-2017-11-30
^ "Shaik-ul-Islam Trust holds 4-day spiritual meeting in Mysuru". www.citytoday.news.
^ "Muslims at unrest across Globe says Islamic Scholar Madani Miya". www.siasat.com.
^ "Islamic Scholar Hazarath Mufti Syed Mohd Madni Miyan to lead Jumma prayer at Masjid Azam tomorrow". www.citytoday.news.

Coverage is passing and mainly in the context of his father.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any significant independent coverage by mainstream reliable sources for his father either, only mentions in passing or trivial mentions, like he is going to be a speaker at some event.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is sufficient coverage for an article. Someone with Urdu-language and Muslim-naming conventions should add some local non-English news sources to the article. Patapsco913 (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Personality is notable as one can find sources in Hindi and Urdu languages regarding him, thanksMajun e Baqi (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a problem with this person is that his name can be written several different ways (which is typical for Islamic naming as they trace ancestry and titles) as well as the fact that most coverage is likely going to be in Urdu. Could you provide some links to sources? If I look on youtube, there seems to be a lot of coverage so I would expect that there should be something in local languages. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, here is the link of prominent newspaper The Siasat Daily in urdu language of him- ^[1], if you translate and read this reference then you will clearly know that he is son of Syed Mohammed Madni Ashraf.Indimpdd (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper is great - but the tiny article is not an example significant coverage.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more reference on page check them too, not only The Siasat Daily but Star of Mysore,Dainik Jagran are also prominent newspaper of India, you should translate and check them too.Indimpdd (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage of him in independent mainstream reliable sources (at least in English). India has quite a lot of English-language online-newspapers, so if he were notable, you would expect to find significant coverage of him in them. Instead there are only passing mentions, examples of which are cited by the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ User:Toddy1, Star of Mysore is also a notable newspaper and the news is in English only, if he couldn't be notable then his news won't be published on such notable newspaper, see this- ^[2]Indimpdd (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the newspaper article you mention,[15] is that it is a trivial mention. The newspaper article is two sentences long. It is not an example of significant coverage.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indimpdd: I struck the !vote above as you already voted. As Toddy1 astutely said, that brief blurb saying he is in town is not significant coverage.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this reference but there are 3 more references you may see before i mentioned , read them also.Indimpdd (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment His father is as notable as his son, kindly see Madni Miyan talk page on the discussion of his father's notability, lolMajun e Baqi (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see this man as being similar to Muhammad Tahir ul Qadir’s son Hassan Mohi-ud-Din Qadri. He is a senior office holder in his dad’s organisation with no independent notability aside from his dad and his dad’s organisation. Maybe that will change, but for now he’s not notable. Sorry. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relation with Muhammad Tahir ul Qadir’s and his son Hassan Mohi-ud-Din Qadri, i think that page should not be mentioned here and this matter is differ from that, he is vice president of Shaikhul Islam Trust, this trust is managed by him only because he is spiritual successor and son of Syed Mohammed Madni Ashraf, as i earlier sayed that he is a well known Islamic Scholar, from Ashrafi Sufi Order. He is a great personality and a prominent muslim leader and he has a thousands of followers and Murids not only in India but worldwide. Further it may be very helpful for researchers in the field of mysticism.Indimpdd (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources cited in the article

Citation No	Source	Reliable Source	Independent of subject	Coverage type	Coverage quantity
[1]	"Shaik-ul-Islam Trust holds 4-day spiritual meeting in Mysuru". City Today (Mysuru Today). 24 August 2019.	Yes	Yes	Trivial	1 sentence
[2]	Hussain, Mohammed (5 September 2019). "Muslims at unrest across Globe says Islamic Scholar Madani Miya". The Siasat Daily.	Yes	Yes	Trivial	1 sentence, 1 photo
[3]	"ख्वाजा गरीब नवाज कांफ्रेंस का आयोजन" [Khwaja Garib Nawaz Conference organised]. Jagran New Media (Jagran Prakashan Limited). 27 April 2018.	Yes	Yes	Trivial	1 sentence
[4]	"Eminent scholar starts religious discourses". The Hans India. 6 September 2019.	Yes	Yes	Trivial	1 sentence
[5]	"Islamic Scholar Hazarath Mufti Syed Mohd Madni Miyan to lead Jumma prayer at Masjid Azam tomorrow". City Today (Mysuru Today). 22 August 2019.	Yes	Yes	Trivial	2 sentences, 1 photo
[6]	"Islamic Scholar In Mysuru". Star of Mysore. 22 August 2019. Retrieved 19 July 2020.	Yes	Yes	Trivial	1 sentence
[7]	"حضور شیخ الاسلام کی حیدرآباد میں آمد" [Arrival of Shaykh-ul-Islam in Hyderabad]. The Siasat Daily. 6 August 2019.	Yes	Yes	Trivial	0 sentences
[8]	"Intl. Islamic Scholar Arriving In City". Star of Mysore. 12 August 2019.	Yes	Yes	Trivial	1 sentence
[9]	"Intl. Islamic Scholar Hazarath Sha Moulana Mufti Syed's timings for prayer in various mosques in Mysuru". City Today (Newspaper). 12 August 2019.	Yes	Yes	Trivial	2 sentences

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC), update 12:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC), 2nd update 11:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 13:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment For notability discussion please read above discussion's.Indimpdd (talk) 15:10, 25 July 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 Nagaland Baptist Church Council. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ao Baptist Arogo Mungdang

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

I have not found any independent sources, therefore this looks to fail WP:GNG. Therefore, what remains is a list of non-notable churches but Wikipedia is not and never has been a directory. Spiderone 11:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nagaland Baptist Church Council. Per WP:NOTDIR and the rest of the organisation does not appear notable enough for its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy with redirect on the basis that it is a plausible search term Spiderone 21:55, 30 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War from a Harlots Mouth

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Taking to AfD as aware they have articles in 3 other language WPs (though also with similar issues including lack of referencing) and, as I don't speak German or have a good knowledge of German music or this genre of music, I may have missed something.

They have released several albums on Lifeforce Records, so they would meet NBAND if this is considered to meet NBAND #5: 'one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).' I'm not convinced it is; though there are articles on several of its articles, all of them lack evidence of notability.

The only other it may meet (I can't see it meeting WP:GNG) is NBAND #7: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. I found no evidence it meets this though. Boleyn (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If Transmetropolitan (album) gets deleted, then I am indifferent about deleting WFAHM. However, if Transmetropolitan (album) is NOT deleted, then it can be merged into WFAHM. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they have coverage in multiple reliable sources such as AllMusic (review and bio), Sputnik, Metal Injection, Metal Sucks and the sources shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmetropolitan (album) which is one of their albums so they pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because Transmetropolitan (album) was closed as keep, I suggest keeping this article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think one notable album necessarily makes a band pass WP:BAND and the sources in the article seem to be primary or don't otherwise do it. That's just my interpretation of this though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306's interpretation; I think they have just enough coverage to be notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion is that if a band has an independently notable album they can certainly inherit notability from it. All of the sources about the album are also about the band... Per the prior analysis the album is notable ergo we should keep this article. @Boleyn: I would understand if you didn't agree with the result but since the album closed as keep do you have a different rationale to Adamant1's or is it the same? Personally, I think an even result is in everyone's interest. PainProf (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the biggest bands in all of Germany’s heavy music scene, no reason at all to delete this article. They’ve been on German TV, have done a US tour, an Australian tour, and have a big significance in metalcore. If this goes then I imagine we should probably get Heaven Shall Burn deleted as well. That’s about the logic I see here. Second Skin (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-guideline based, hand waving "other things exist" fear mongering votes like yours help reaffirm to me that this band should be deleted despite the single notable album. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah uh good luck with getting this deleted Second Skin (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Yeah uh" I could really care less if its deleted or not. That doesn't mean I'm not going to point out someones crappy justifications for voting keep though if I feel like it. Cool useless retort though. Adamant1 (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol multiple international tours definitely do constitute for notability, definitely not a “crappy justification”. And so do multiple huge magazines like Decibel and Alternative Press writing multiple stories about them [16] [17] (and also many more including MetalSucks and Metal Injection that I wont bother to link). Btw it’s *couldnt care less (not could). Cool attempt at a “retort” via using a grammatically incorrect idiom though chief 👍🏻 Second Skin (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to show me a guideline that says a band who has multiple international tours is notable. My guess is you wont because one doesn't exit. Until you do I'm sticking by it being a crappy keep justification. As far as the whole "grammatically incorrect idiom" thing goes its called a mobile edit. I'll also point out that a lot of people participate in AfDs who don't use English as a first language. Plus, some editors likely have learning disabilities etc that might effect their usage of grammer. So, it's extremely worthless and semi-insulting to the inclusive nature of the project and the people who participate in it to critize someone for leaving out a comma or for doing anything else along those lines, chief. Adamant1 (talk) 12:19, 1 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal media

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

A vague wide-ranging essay. The title is a vague ubiquitous term with no specific meaning. No coverage in sources of the topic as a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed as a part of new article review process.North8000 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The page is well-written and, looking at the creator's talk page, I'm conscious that they're a student who's working on a wiki class project and we need to be careful to not bite the newbies: however, I don't see how this page can be cleaned up sufficiently to form a viable Wikipedia page. Courtesy ping to @Piotrus:, who's mentoring the page creator and may wish to contribute to this discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that AFC would be a good place for students to get experience and feedback before the tougher place of article space. But some alternate structure by Piotrus such as developing in user or drafty space and getting feedback from Piotrus and then a green light from Piotrus before moving to article space. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was rejected at AFC for the same reason. Sources don't recognize it as a distinct topic. (and, as an aside, it really isn't a distinct topic). Also "reads like an essay" It's unfortunate that nobody explained that the former is an underlying problem rather than a matter of article improvement. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By pure coincidence I just noticed that in the same hour I complimented and marked as reviewed another article by the same student. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think what we need is a review of sources by someone who speaks and reads Korean fluently (I don't). I did ask the student to translate the reference article titles, and a number of them includes the concept of 'personal media' in the heading, which suggests that the topic is discussed more in-depth in the article and is therefore notable. (I will also note that many of the references here are from Korean academic sources). As such, I think it is very likely that even if there are no English sources cited, the topic may be notable in Korean academic discourse, and we need a Korean speaker to tell us whether I am right or wrong. Further note: the student translated Korean term "1인 미디어" ("one person media") as "personal media". I just found and interwiki linked ko:1인 미디어). If the article is kept, we could consider renaming it. Anyway, the topic does seem to be used a few times in English academic literature too: "1 Person Media Based on Person Wide Web for Preventing Privacy Risk", or "Personal Media as Cultural Intermediaries, YouTube Channel". Those are again Korean academic articles (i.e. written by Korean scholars, translated to English, and published in Korean journals) and there is more than just the two I cited as samples, see this search, so I stand by my initial assessment that this is a topic that is limited to Korean academia, but nonetheless appears notable enough for a stand-alone article.

I don't think the article is written too essay-ish, through the prose as common with ESLs is not pretty (so a few awkward constructs like "seems to be" might give it some essay-ish style, but I think it is more of a matter of poor English than overall essay-construction). Right now I don't see a good reason to delete this, but if a source review can be done and confirms this topic is not discussed in-depth in Korean works, then of course I'd revise my desision.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Is it possible that the meaning in Korea of their equivalent of this term has a more distinct meaning? Wording could make something a distinct topic in Korea that is not a distinct topic elsewhere in which case an article (probably renamed to include it's Korean context) which explains such could be very informative and interesting. Essayish wording normally would be a reason to improve rather then delete an article, but I brought it up because it looks like a symptom of the article having no distinct topic.North8000 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible. As you ar the nom, I'd suggest we take a breather, and per BEFORE you take a look at the (relatively few) English language sources I cite below, and consider whether the concept is notable or not. My review of them is leaning to the fact this is a notable concept, although it may have some better known English synonym, through right now I am not sure what it is outside of "social media" in general. The Korean meaning seems to be more focused on the 'published by one person' aspect of it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only goal was to do have done my NPP job properly. And now to just contribute to the discussion to help get this sorted out properly. That said......the concern is that it is a widely used two word sequence with many many different meanings rather than being a distinct topic. A few of the broad categories of those meanings are individually produced media, media that is individually targeted and media that is individually owned or possessed. And so IMO the notability question is not for usage of the two word sequence but for it as a distinct topic. PS: you mentioned sources cited below but I don't think that you cited any. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's definitely a notable topic here but the clouds of Korean fog are obscuring it. This is not some special Korean thing and so we should knock this back to a stub and rebuild using English language sources per WP:NOENG which states that "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones...". The article currently contains one good source of this sort and to firmly establish notability we could use one more so here's a book on the subject. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent work by @Andrew Davidson. I've also added a bit. This is a notable (although rather broad) term that's used in media studies. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: happy to strike out my vote and give it a weak keep for the moment to allow it some breathing room, given the edits which have been made since my original comment. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:28, 27 July 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. No one has offered a rebuttal to RHirsch1770's final comment. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verzache

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

Subject of article is an up & coming musician who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the page because it looks as if Verzache does fulfil criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. The Citations include Elevator Magazine, EDM.com, and Ones To Watch, as well as his inclusion in the "Concerts to Check Out in N.Y.C. This Weekend" article in the New York Times. These fulfil criterion 1 and 4 respectively. I believe this does meet the criteron for notability. Please let me know if it really doesn't so I can avoid this mistake in the future! RHirsch1770 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! No single criterion from WP:MUSICBIO is met, a simple 'before' search from any editor would confirm that. Feel free to bring to this AFD the sources you feel makes subject of our article satisfy #1 & #4 of WP:MUSICBIO. Also which article from The NY times do you speak of? Celestina007 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I cite Verzache being recommended in [New York Times], and reviewed on [[18]] and [To Watch]. All of these are cited in the article, Verzache. This meets #1 because Verzache "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." This is #1 ofWP:MUSICBIO. Although Elevator Magazine is additionally cited, this includes segments from an interview and so cannot help fulfill #1. I also argue that Verzache fulfills criteria #4 because by being covered in the New York Times for his international concert tour ([New York Times]) he "has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Thank you for your time. RHirsch1770 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 25 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue Beat

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

Advertisement of a Non-notable music group. Lack of reliable resources which are independent of the subject. I found only press releases coverage promoting the music group. Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG DMySon 06:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: falls far short of WP:NBAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete: Looks like WP:TOOSOON. It doesn't yet hit the usual hints from WP:MUSICBIO that a band is permanently notable: Nobody has metioned any hit on a major national chart. Billboard.com appears to be far too stupid to allow chart searches by name. (And that criterion seems very broad anyway: Would breaking into #50 on the specialized Hot Country Songs count, or does this criterion mean a nation's unified/all-genre/broadest chart like the Hot 100?) The band has no entry on the RIAA Gold/Platinum certification list. Even presuming that Valory Music Co. counts as an "important indie label" by our standards, I think Avenue Beat has had only an EP or two released by Valory so far, not the two full albums that WP:MUSICBIO says would indicate more likely notable than not. Someone on the article talk page mentioned that the song "F2020 is currently being played on iheart radio", and provided a now-playing screenshot for 9:03am (day unspecified) for 107.5 WRVW at Lebanon, Tennessee, which is an iHeart station in the Nashville market, but I don't know if that's a nationwide rotation mandate from iHeart. (Stations might still have local flexibility, and the WRVW article claims, unsourced, that Ryan Seacrest is the morning/noon host, and implies that it's specific to WRVW, which if true would make it an exceptional station.) So I looked for major reliable sources for WP:SIGCOV: The Forbes.com article "Viral Lowkey F—k 2020 Song From Avenue Beat Now Streaming Despite TikTok’s Initial Removal" is a Forbes.com "Contributor" page (not regular Forbes magazine editorial control), so it doesn't really count: see WP:FORBES. Other sources are marginal: They're well-known brand names, but that doesn't necessarily indicate reliability anymore; I can't tell whether they're editorially-controlled content (such as would go into the print edition) or less-controlled (which is very common nowadays); and they're facially independent of the subject, but they contain interview material, which appear to indicate a whole lot of press "availability" and not a lot of independent journalistic research, for what that's worth: "Too Much Togetherness? Three Bandmates in Avenue Beat Test Their Bonds by Quarantining Under One Roof" on People.com; "Avenue Beat's TikTok Song “F2020” Is a Hit for This Horrid Year" on teenvogue.com; "Hot country trio Avenue Beat sings brash, fun songs of empowerment" on Cleveland.com (Cleveland Plain Dealer website), written by a high school freshman as part of a Cleveland-area journalism partnership. The sources on Google beyond that look to me to be mostly music promo/not-picky media outlets. --Closeapple (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they do have articles on Billboard such as here and here as well as a staff written biography at AllMusic here , will look for more sources tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have found more reliable sources coverage such as Taste of Country here, another Taste of Country piece here, The Tennessean here, The New York Times here which is a short piece in singles of the week but it shows that they are getting national attention, and People here. Overall there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another source from Buzzfeed here imv, Joelirby (talk) 2:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep More coverage here including Variety, Digital Journal, and Sounds Like Nashville. As stated above, I believe there is more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG imv Joelirby (talk 8:14 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of the links you provided are the routine coverage that promotes the band and few are dead links. Still fails WP:GNG. DMySon 04:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full articles in publications such as Billboard are not routine and are a clear sign of national notability, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. PF4Eva (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a little unclear because so much of the coverage is about the F2020 song such that there might be a better case for notability of that song, but there's more to say about the group and that comes out in the sources. in addition to this above, there's e.g. Rolling Stone — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same concern when I went for draftify/delete above: Right now most of the coverage appears to be substantially about the song "F2020" specifically, and it seems that it covers the band itself only to the extent of the band summary (of questionable independence) and arranged interview that any song getting label promotion has. There seem to be a few articles about other songs, but following the same template. --Closeapple (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's easily enough coverage to pass WP:GNG identified in this discussion, you can't seperate an artist from their work in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above mentioned sources, clearly sufficient to pass WP:NMUSIC. Sounds Like Nashville, The Boot, Variety, and Billboard are all unquestionably reliable sources to convey notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Addressing comments about radio play above, MusicRow article here mentions that their song 'F2020' has been played globally by more than 70 pop stations. Two of those stations are Z100 in New York and KIIS in Los Angeles which shows a greater support across iHeart radio outside of the Nashville station mentioned above. I don't know if Spotify charts are considered, but the article also discusses placement at number six globally and number three in the US for Spotify Viral 50. I think both of these point to notability as far as WP:NMUSIC Joelirby 08:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Goenka

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

Fails WP:NBIO. But qualifies for WP:PROMO, as a promotional article and WP:BIORELATED, as an invalid criteria. Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's earned a few awards of distinction within the chef/restaurant community in which she is employed, including one from the Times of India. Article is about a prominent female, which would help combat gender bias on Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of them are notable awards - we do not have articles about those awards, and nor are they likely to meet our criteria. Edwardx (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to her famous fathers bio. I fail to see anything notable about her. The fact that she won awards isn't really relevant to notability on it's own and I'm not sure what else there is that would pass the standards. Combating gender bias isn't a good reason to keep the article either. There's much better ways to do it then keeping articles about people based solely on something like their gender. Although, unfortunately it's a keep argument that seems to be coming up way more for some reason recently. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why the nom brings up BIORELATED: the article doesn't make any claim on notability through her family. Her books have been widely reviewed, so she passes WP:AUTHOR. See Outlook Traveler, Indian Express, The Hindu. The awards don't hurt, either. pburka (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because her being an author is third on the list of things she's known for and it's extremely small part of the article. Which is about her as a person so BIORELATED 100% applies. Otherwise you could single out any minor thing someone does at say special notability guidelines for that thing applies. notability is suppose to be based on the general topic of the article isn't about an author. Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BIORELATED is about being related to a famous person. Her famous father is mentioned in one sentence at the end of the article. From what I can tell, the nom is proposing that this be deleted because she's related to a famous person. That's not how we do things. pburka (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The nominator gave it as the last reason out of three. I think your nitpicking. She still fails the other two anyway. So just ignore it if you don't agree with it. Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whatever section of her famous daddy's bio is appropriate. GNG is not a thing in the article at hand, but WP:ATD is a thing in AfD discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of three articles just created by a new account. This seems to be some sort of promotionalist action in violation of our guidelines. We need to stop it now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reason given in the deletion nomination looks false. I don't find article promotional in any sense. Whatever the information is written is supported by the third party reliable source. It also doesn't make any claim on notability through her family, even her father's name is mentioned once only in Personal life. Now, just because her family is known, the article shouldn't suffer. After reading the guidelines of BIORELATED, I do not think if it applies here. It meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NBIO, as the subject has gained significant media coverage from the various newspaper and the nominator should have performed WP:BEFORE. Also, I think if any article contains any PROMO in the page, it needs a WP:FIXit, not WP:DELETION. I also found the article PASSED AFD in its last nomination in 2016. So, I'll go for keep. --2401:4900:5177:719:257F:5030:40FA:6AFF (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Per my source analysis below. Redirect to the section Viveck_Goenka#Restaurateur. - hako9 (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

Source	Independent?	RS?	Sigcov?	Overall
https://ahmedabadmirror.indiatimes.com/ahmedabad/cover-story/women-of-steel/articleshow/35675469.cms	Yes	Yes	A para dedicated to her, but not the whole article
https://photogallery.indiatimes.com/awards/awards-and-honours/times-hospitality-icons-2019/articleshow/70068460.cms?picid=70070640	. Insignificant award given by the same organization that covered the news	Yes
http://magazine.theceo.in/30-women-entrepreneurs/files/basic-html/page35.html	Yes		Yes
https://issuu.com/feelings/docs/feelings_english_edition_sep18	Yes		Yes
https://www.indiamags.com/icicibank/dogs-more-magazine	Yes		? because paywalled
https://www.magzter.com/article/Lifestyle/Mother-Baby-India/Eat-Pray-Love	Yes		Yes
https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/supplement/story/20160627-chef-rachel-goenka-restaurant-the-sassy-spoon-best-independent-restaurant-in-india-critics-choice-829099-2016-06-17	Interview with the subject in question	Yes	Yes
https://www.forbesindia.com/printcontent/39171	Yes	Yes	A trivial mention
http://bwhotelier.businessworld.in/article/Sassy-Teaspoon-Soon-Planning-for-PAN-India-Expansion/11-09-2017-125875/	Yes		Yes
https://www.vervemagazine.in/travel-and-spaces/the-dim-sums-at-bandras-newly-opened-house-of-mandarin-are-truly-unmissable and https://www.vervemagazine.in/travel-and-spaces/review-the-sassy-spoon-mumbai	Yes		? covers her business interests, not her
Dailyhunt [citation 16 in the article] (URL blocked by spamfilter)	Yes	At the bottom of the article, Publisher: YourStory (unreliable)	Yes
https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/features/diwali-special-have-your-mithai-and-eat-it-too-says-rachel-goenka-11571997312682.html	Yes	Yes	Yes	But WP:1E & WP:NTEMP
https://www.mid-day.com/articles/when-mithai-goes-mod/21943174?ref=component_article_infinitescroll_1	Yes	~~Maybe~~ Yes	Yes	But WP:1E & WP:NTEMP
https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/opinion/the-informer/Never-too-late-to-celebrate/articleshow/36644772.cms?	Yes	Yes	A trivial mention
https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/food-wine/sweet-success-3-6069031/	Source is her father's company	Yes	Yes
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/and-then-there-was-food/	Source is her father's company	Yes
https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/books/rachel-goenka-adventures-with-mithai-book-review-6100094/	Source is her father's company	Yes	Yes
http://www.fnbnews.com/Events/goenkas-adventures-with-mithai-bags-gourmand-world-cookbook-award-20-53651	Yes		Partially
https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/329878#5	A small interview
https://www.thehindu.com/books/rachel-goenka-gives-traditional-sweets-a-contemporary-makeover/article30287530.ece	Yes	Yes	Yes	But WP:1E & WP:NTEMP
https://www.outlookindia.com/outlooktraveller/travelnews/story/69963/book-review-adventures-with-mithai-indian-sweets-get-a-modern-makeover	Yes	Yes	Yes	But WP:1E & WP:NTEMP

I failed to list two other reliable sources which I have added now. With these sources she passes GNG. But worth noting that all the four combined reliable sources are actually just short(ish) book reviews on her only published book. I feel the subject still fails WP:AUTHOR and her notability is not enduring as per WP:NTEMP and WP:1E, so I am not changing my !vote. In case the AfD consensus is keep, the unreliable sources and promo content needs to be removed. - hako9 (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - hako9 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: The relist wasn't done by me as evidenced from the edit history. The invisible comment I made earlier wasn't closed properly and hence the subst temp relist shows my signature instead of Spartaz's signature) - hako9 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, the source analysis by Hako9 shows that she just barely passes GNG, with two reliable sources giving her significant coverage. The article could use quite a bit of work, but it’s not promotional to the extent a WP:TNT delete would be the solution. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:20, 26 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hodgetwins

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was declined multiple times in draftspace, by myself, Lapablo, and Eternal Shadow (at least this time, I know that I have declined this subject in the past). It looks like the original editor removed the decline notice and AngusWOOF accepted the draft not knowing its history. Prior to its time in draftspace, this article failed a deletion discussion, and was A7 speedy deleted two-weeks ago. The sources added include repeated fact-checks of false statements they have made, as well as several sources that WP lists as unreliable (Daily Caller, Blaze Media, Newsweek). Finally, I would argue that this fails WP:NWEB. Bkissin (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many new sources have been added since the previous deletions. Yes, sources are fact checking their claims as they have a very large following. You link to a guideline about web content, but this is a biography. Remove all the sources you claim as unreliable, and there is still plenty of coverage to pass guidelines. The in-depth coverage provided by Martinsville Bulletin, CNBNEWS Gloucester City, San Antonio Current, Oklahoma Gazette, and LA Weekly makes this easily pass WP:BIO notability guidelines.--Ethan Wood Snr (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment previous AFD resulted in soft delete as the sources were mainly from primary sources. This has since been replaced by multiple articles from USA Today Network, which shows some notability nationally, and some articles showed they toured internationally. If you want to remove the RSP failing sources, that would be fine. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Edit I was planning on adding them in myself and I must say that between their several channels and prominence as African American conservatives it should not be so controversial to add them on here. They have gained a bit of notoriety and I would be happy to help bring the quality of this stub up. Bgrus22 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak) It arguably fails WP:NWEB but also has significant controversies to counteract that. Eternal Shadow Talk 01:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Delete due to notability issues. Their mentions in national press seem brief, haven't seen one where they are the focus or play a large part. Seem to get coverage in local press where they tour but not sure if any of the sources are WP:RS. For example, I do not see LA Weekly in WP:RSP. Rab V (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep As noted above, they have a lot of sources. Most are local to wherever they are performing, but that's a lot of places apparently. Article needs a ton of work, but topic meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Another case of the media giving unearned attention to Youtubes who are attention whoring with controversies.★Trekker (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With that I'll agree (though I would have used different words :-) `Hobit (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 25 July 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 Only You Can Save Mankind#Ideas and themes. There is a clear consensus that this article should not exist in Wikipedia, with the real dispute being between outright deletion and redirection of the title. Redirection is better argued given the mention of the subject in the proposed target section. WP:PRESERVE also applies. BD2412 T 01:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Alpha Centauri (In Real Time)

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

NN video game, fails the GNG and WP:NFT. ZERO reliable sources, namedrop or otherwise. Notability tagged for over eleven years. Prod removed with the rationale "there are better ways to handle this than deletion," by a deprodder who did not trouble to find any sources himself. Ravenswing 07:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 07:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 07:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I looked for better sources but couldn't find any. Prod was removed by user:Spinningspark (see the article's talk page) with the reason: I think this is unlikely ever to work as a standalone page, but the claim it is the video game with the longest minimum completion time is an interesting factoid worth preserving. I would favour merge and redirect so the title remains on Wikipedia. The obvious target is Interactive fiction but it may be WP:UNDUE there. An alternative is Only You Can Save Mankind where it is already mentioned.

:By the way, that claim needs to be treated with caution, it is unsourced and games exist, such as Elite, which have no completion time at all. It would be better to just say it has a 3000 year completion and leave it at that. Personally I don't think it is relevant to merge/redirect to any other targets. Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And truth be told, I removed that assertion. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, and there were zero sources backing that claim up, never mind rock-solid ones. Ravenswing 08:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for entirely stripping the article of anything interesting or worth keeping. I assume you did a WP:BEFORE search before those deletions, so can only assume you are not very good at it. This source verifies both the 3000 years game time and the Terry Pratchett connection. In any case, the 3000 years is a plot element and as such can be sourced to the work itself. If the game is run, it is quite plain that it will complete in 3000 years since it consists almost entirely of a countdown timer. Even the claim that it will run for somewhat longer than 3000 years (due to incorrect counting) can be seen in-game, and I would argue that is allowable per WP:CALC. It is rather unconstructive to stub an article and at the same time nominate it for AFD. It deprives others of the chance to investigate the unsourced claims. Citation needed would have been more appropriate. Now you know it can be sourced, I trust that you are going to restore some of this material. SpinningSpark 15:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I "stripped" the article of three sentences, all unsourced, and two of them being extraordinary claims. (And that being said, nothing prevents any interested editor from examining the article's history.) Ravenswing 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and restore to its former glory before being stubbed. At worst, merge it somewhere per WP:ATD – deletion is not appropriate for material that is suitable for an encyclopaedia. SpinningSpark 15:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ahem. Its "former glory?" As it happens, the definition of what is suitable for Wikipedia is in substantive coverage in reliable sources, which this article lacks, never has had. You can hardly imagine that a podcast constitutes a reliable source, but in any event, the subject is mentioned only so far as "Wobbler’s game Journey to Alpha Centauri inspired a real game, Journey to Alpha Centauri (In Real Time), written by Julian Fleetwood in 1998 using the interactive fiction language Inform. It doesn’t currently seem to be available anywhere, but you probably don’t have a spare 3,000 years to finish it anyway." Certainly not substantive coverage, even if we were all confident that the podcast didn't just gank from the Wikipedia article.
Beyond that, your ongoing opposition to deleting this article -- pushing for some delay, any delay -- verges on bad faith. We are under no onus to keep an article indefinitely, and neither you nor any other editor has cared enough these last eleven years -- that notability tagging constituting "citations needed!" -- to find suitable sourcing for this one. To quote WP:N, "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Ravenswing 15:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason a podcast cannot be a reliable source. This one is presented by a professional journalist (former magazine editor) and a professional game writer so have some claim to expertise under WP:SPS. I did not present this source as evidence of notability, that's a straw man argument, I presented it as verification of the facts you deleted. SpinningSpark 15:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far from a "straw-man argument," it's the only argument we're having here. AfD is a discussion of the notability of the article, not a content dispute. Ravenswing 17:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Only You Can Save Mankind#Ideas and themes as a WP:ATD where it's mentioned. It has no coverage needed for a separate article per WP:GNG, but it can be preserved. I added a source (and probably a bit more reliable than a Pratchet fan book club podcast) at the novel's article that also verifies 3000 years. Nothing to merge here as 1) it's all unsourced and 2) the target article I mentioned has it all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jovanmilic. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources so no content.
Redirect per Jovanmilic97 - the mention on the target page is sourced so I think this is fair. Subject doesn't merit its own article. Paradox society 07:57, 1 August 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. Do note that WP:AUTHOR #3 makes WP:NOTINHERITED an invalid rebuttal to coverage of the author's work. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Onyschenko

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

The subject seems to fail NBIO. Prod removed due to "award winning", but the awards don't seem major, and the entire article is referenced (BLP issues). The article seems pretty promotional, too, and has major tone issues (a section entitled "interesting fact"...). WP:TNT level. My BEFORE did not find anything helpful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of sources about the subject and her work, which is impressive due to her relatively short career so far, including some sources in English.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymatth2 (talk • contribs) 04:57, June 30, 2020 (UTC)
- Source, not sources, in English (I see you presented only one: [26]). This profile is on a reliable site, but it is also very short, and those kind of profiles are almost always written by the subject upon request from the website hosting them, so I don't think it is RS (SPS). The other sources seem similar, at best what we get as a WP:INTERVIEW. Do let me know if you find any source that is not an interview, that is reliable, and that contains in-depth discussion of the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [27] Midpoint Institute: Biography of subject
  2. [28] Above the Line GmbH: Filmography and biography of subject
  3. [29] Swiss Films: Short bio.
  4. [30] Ukrainian Institute: Snippet: "the jury awarded the Ukrainian-Swiss film "Forgotten" directed by Daria Onyshchenko with the prize"
  5. [31] Deutsche Welle: Short biographical introduction followed by interview. The interview is not a good source for information about the subject, but does contribute to notability.
  6. [32] Нове Українське Кіно (New Ukrainian Cinema): Interview, ditto
  7. [33] Ukrayina Moloda: Lengthy review of the subject's film The Forgotten, with biographical material
  8. [34] Нове Українське Кіно (New Ukrainian Cinema): Review of The Forgotten at the Warsaw Film Festival
  9. [35] Kyiv International Film Festival "Molodist": Description, cast, crew etc of The Forgotten
  10. [36] In-Art: Description of Forgotten, some biographical info, e.g. Daria Onishchenko's first debut film, Istalgia, won many prizes at international film festivals and was widely distributed in several countries.
  11. [37] LB.ua: Review of Forgotten, special award at the Warsaw Film Festival
  12. [38] Львівська Поштa (Lviv Post): Lengthy description of Forgotten.
  13. [39] Consulate General of Ukraine in Munich: Program for show of best Ukrainian films of recent years. Short description of the subject's Istalgia
  14. [40] Galinfo: Pre-production description of the subject's film Malevich
  15. [41] Нове Українське Кіно (New Ukrainian Cinema) Review of Malevich
  16. [42] Media Business Reports: Discussion of Malevich and interview
  There are many similar sources. Obviously the subject is mainly known for The Forgotten, which could use an article in its own right, but Istalgia and Malevich have also drawn attention to her. Notable primarily for her work, like Homer. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would seriously advise against comparing the subject to Homer. And I am sorry, I stand by my inital view of WP:TOOSOON, I don't see much except mentions in passing and minor awards. A number of your sources are about awards or reviews, primarily for the Forgotten, which also brings us to WP:NOTINHERITED. Maybe some of this could be rescued in the form of an article about that work, if anyone cares to write it, it may be notable even when the autor is not. Let's wait and see if we get more comments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a disingenuous misuse is NOTINHERITED. Of course artists inherit notability from their art. pburka (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. Notability is inherited in certain circumstances for artists per WP:ARTIST. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this page can be kept because she has a moderate coverage in Russian language news, i.e. [43] and Ukrainian sources (some of the links in discussion above). A number of the sources do not mention her just in passing, but provide more in-depth coverage. For example, this interview to Deutsche Welle or this. My very best wishes (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But keep WP:INTERVIEW in mind --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that sources tell a lot more about her movies than about her personally. However, this is an argument she probably passes WP:AUTHOR #3 (The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work... such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) or #4 (The person's work ... won significant critical attention). My very best wishes (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do agree that the page is poorly written and essentially unsourced in the present state. However, based on the sources and links that appear during this AfD (see above), her life and especially her work were covered in multiple RS by 3rd parties. So, it can be sourced and improved. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack references. Does not pass General notability guidelines. DMySon 03:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:19, 19 July 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, 25 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Hall School

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

~~Unreferenced with a chance of CoI, clearly fails wikipedia's notability~~ Kakima minimoto (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete. WP:COPYVIO. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Although~~ Copyvio text has been removed, ~~it is still visible in page history, and none of the three refs are~~ but only one ref is now functional (with passing refs), leaving the text effectively unsourced. Citations, please?? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Keep: The school has a long history and is notable in the Indian subcontinent as well as abroad; has strong connections with Saint Joseph's Missionary Society of Mill Hill and Army Burn Hall College. Remove content that comes under WP:COPYVIO. Idell (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment citation please if it is notableKakima minimoto (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:GDBN:
  First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject.
  Nevertheless, take a look at the sources cited on ABHC for that purpose. Idell (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's need for improvement as to sources, rest as per a user above this institute is quite notable and has a long history as to Kashmir and Pakistan. USaamo ^(t@lk) 13:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Saint Joseph's Missionary Society of Mill Hill or Army Burn Hall College. I don't really care which, but this clearly isn't notable enough on it's own since the only claim to notability is that people say it is. That said, it would be fine to merge it into either article that I suggested. Although I'll leave it up to other people to decide which one. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Saint Joseph's Missionary Society of Mill Hill or to Army Burn Hall College per Adamant1. I rescued one of the 3 references currently in the article, a journal piece, but it made only 2 passing mentions of Burn Hall School. There are also multiple book and Google scholar references — again, they make only passing mentions. Online reviews suggest it may be a fine institution, but without significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources it fails WP:GNG. I'd like to be persuaded otherwise with some solid references; ~~however, merging appears to me to be the best option at this point.~~ Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Generally, if a school is a high school (as this one appears to be), then verifiability is enough to keep an article on the school (see WP:SCHOOLS. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RegentsPark, unfortunately, WP:SCHOOLS is now a DAB page, not the standard in use. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is, which says, At one time, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG. Schools now must meet either WP:N or WP:ORG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I guess I'm behind the times. Then scratch my not vote since I can't actually look for sources (and am unclear as to what makes a school notable anyway). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I disagree with the merge proposal, particularly the 'merge to Army Burn Hall College' one. At the time of creation, both of them had different names. Burn Hall School has the same founders as ABHC and it was later renamed after ABHC, that’s all they have in common anymore. They are located in two different countries, with quite the polar opposite administrations. Note that this school is located in a territory disputed between two (or just maybe three) countries. That explains the lack of coverage well enough. Merging would be particularly disruptive for ABHC and further confuse the readers. See Special:Diff/968950676 where administrator Necrothesp deprod-ed my proposed deletion of a secondary school that failed GNG. Idell (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, Idell for the background perspective. I cannot recall another AfD discussion where I was more in a quandary, but here I have again struck part of my previous posts. I have finally found more sources (below), some with more than passing mention, but I am not familiar with any of these publications. I would appreciate others' evaluations of their reliability and independence of the school. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grand'mere Eugene, I have struck my vote and chaanged to keep Minimoto (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Burn Hall School, Srinagar". EducationWorld. 2013-03-22. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
"Children of Conflict: How is Uncertainty Shaping Children's Behaviour in Kashmir". Kashmir Observer. 2018-06-20. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
"Debates, discussions augment academic atmosphere : Altaf Bukhari | KNO". Kashmir News Observer. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
"Burn Hall School celebrates diamond jubilee". Greater Kashmir. 2016-05-06. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
"DDC inaugurates Burn Hall Bal Mela". Greater Kashmir. 2015-03-14. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
"BPL Student's Admission In Missionary Schools". Greater Kashmir. 2016-12-21. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
"Old schooling brands no more gold in academics?". Greater Kashmir. 2015-03-14. Retrieved 2020-07-26.

Keep. I checked the sources above at WP:RSP and also the archives of WP:RSN, and found no adverse records. Using these sources, I've substantially revised the content of the article, and now believe (finally!) that it meets WP:GNG, and should be kept in the encyclopedia. Thanks to all for your patience while I dithered my way through this process. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you cited the notability guidelines, you don't think an article about them celebrating a jubilee and a few of the topics the sources talk about would be what WP:NORG considers trivial coverage? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: The guideline on sources refers to "multiple sources", but not every source is required to provide "significant coverage". I agree that the jubilee article is not significant coverage, but it does support the assertion of the school's longevity, its existence for 60 years. I did describe the list above as "some with more than passing mention", so following the advice of Roy Smith's essay, I offer that of the list above, #1, #5, and #7 provide substantial coverage of the school, though #2, which only mentions Burn Hall School, gets my vote for the most thoughtful piece. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I was just asking. You make a fair point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, well done to Grand'mere Eugene finding and using good sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am very happy that my mere effort of just taking the bad shape article on Afd have improved it a lot, thanks to grand mere I am ready to keep the article, once again thanksMinimoto (talk) 07:23, 29 July 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 Canadian Idol (season 1). Clear consensus not to keep; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Lee Batten

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

We seem to have an article here that, while quite sizeable, has very little to say toward any possible notability.

To delineate how she seems to fail every point of WP:NMUSIC, at least those that would apply in the first place...

1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works..."
- The only result on AmericanRadioHistory.com, which archives back issues of Billboard, Radio & Records, and other music and chart magazines, is a listing (scroll to page 70) that her video was played on CMT Canada.
- AllMusic does not have a biography for her, and they usually write biographies on anyone.
- The sources in the article are mostly WP:PRIMARY or promotional in nature, including Amazon, ReverbNation, and TV.com, as well as the official sites of various non-notable awards she's won.
- There are some articles on newspapers.com, but almost all are just "local girl performing tonight at such and such" type fluff from her hometown newspaper in Abbotsford. The rest are just passing mentions in the greater context of Canadian Idol.
2. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."
- Billboard seems to suggest that one of her albums made #98 on the Canadian Albums Chart, but the chart itself is paywalled so this is difficult to verify. That's still an extremely low ranking, and outweighed by the utter lack of sourcing or other claims to fame.
3. "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country."
- As mentioned above, she was on a compliation album that went gold, and was only one of several performers on it.
4. "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country."
- What little coverage I could find was WP:LOCAL from her hometown newspaper. This article does seem to be somewhat useful, but it makes vague claims like "strong airplay across the country". It also makes claims that she has performed with other artists, but notability is not inherited.

5. "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels..."
- While she has two albums, one of the two was self-released, and the other was on a distributor that pairs with other independent labels.
  - "Karen Lee Batten" + "Every Moment" turns up only the aforementioned sidebars on newspapers.com. The album doesn't even have so much as a placeholder on AllMusic. All I could find was Google Play, ReverbNation, and her own website.
  - "Karen Lee Batten" + "Cause a Scene" turns up no results on newspapers.com or Google Books. The only hits I can find are things like Spotify.
8. "Has won or been nominated for a major music award..."
- As mentioned above, the British Columbia Country Music Awards article was deleted due to lack of notability. Texas Sounds International does not appear to be a major award institution, either.
9. "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition."
- She placed eleventh.
10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g... inclusion on a notable compilation album"
- Again, the album to which she contributed was merely Canadian Idol performances, and while it did go gold, it does not seem to be individually notable.
11. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."
- Some articles make vague mentions that some of her songs got "national airplay", but these claims are utterly unsubstantiated. Canada does have its own country music charts, so if she had gotten any substantial airplay, she certainly would have at least gotten some momentum on them. Vague claims like "national airplay" are usually used to cover up the fact that the song actually didn't chart anywhere and was probably only played once at 3 AM by some random station in BFE.
- One of the snippets above does prove that one of her videos was rotated on CMT Canada, but it seems to have only been for a single week and otherwise got no attention.

tl;dr: suggest either outright deletion or redirection to the season of Canadian Idol in which she placed, due to lack of reliable sourcing or claims to fame. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 12:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to season one of Canadian Idol. I considered perhaps the Canadian Billboard might qualify her for notability, but the nominator lays out very good arguments for the shortcomings of that and other accomplishments. Basically, just another competition show contestant with the usual low-level efforts/accomplishments with dutiful coverage in context to having been on the TV show. It's worth noting very few other low-placing contestants (11th place) from Canadian Idol merit individual wikipedia notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiley Williams

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

As far as I can tell, he doesn't satisfy WP:NTRACK. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Williams is not notable as an athlete nor as an illegal sharer of intellectual property. We should probably delete the undersourced article on the illegal sharing program he created as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find evidence of him meeting any SNG or WP:GNG. Being part of an NCAA division 3 fifth place relay team and winning a state high school track championship do not confer WP notability. There's nothing to show he's notable as a computer programmer, track athlete, or anything else. Sourcing from his school newspaper and a local listing of top area high school track performances fall far short and my own search didn't find the necessary additional sources to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to South West Tasmania. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest, Tasmania

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

"Southwest" is a region, not a locality or suburb in Tasmania. An article already covers the topic South West Tasmania. It could be speedily deleted as a recently created page that duplicates an existing topic. But I suspect this will be a bit more controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest is a locality, as a quick look at the references will confirm. Downsize43 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only one reference mentions that, and it is a database record, and that is given as the type of database entity rather than text, and is in no way distinct from the article on the region. This area always will have Tasmania in the name. It is not a place called "Southwest". The main issue in the reference is whether r not there should be a space in the name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with South West Tasmania. "Southwest" is indeed technically a locality in the geographic data sense, so should remain as such in Wikidata, LISTmap and as an ABS census tract, but not necessary as a separate Wikipedia article as the only difference is the carveout of Strathgordon as an enclave locality. Not enough of a distinction for separation, when the status as a technical locality and the exclusion of Strathgordon could be mentioned in the article. --Canley (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the comments by the two admins, who as knowledgable of Tasmania have an understanding of the convoluted designations of 'things' by the current Australian and Tasmanian governmental information systems - as Canley points out technicsl locality and Graeme points out the designation is a single database record.

Comment The usage is not extended beyond the data item, and could only create real confusion as to what is what in Tasmanian geography, and in turn reduce credibility of the Tasmanian project. JarrahTree 07:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Macquarie Pass is another locality which is virtually identical with the Macquarie Pass National Park. Avon, New South Wales is identical to the Avon Reservoir catchment area and might also be merged with the Avon Dam article.--Grahame (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment and also West Coast, Tasmania (Locality) is a duplicate topic of West Coast, Tasmania, and so could also be merged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what about Southwest National Park, South West Wilderness, do they all need their own page? I suspect the national park page is the one with the most valid claim to its own page. Deus et lex (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well South West Tasmania was known as such long before the national park was created. I do believe that is a notable topic, but it is not necessarily distinct from the national park or wilderness area. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Graeme Bartlett, I think that's the point I was trying to make. Deus et lex (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my idea of what a merged article should look like is at Draft:South West Tasmania ( merged) Downsize43 (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - including the West Coast and Central Highland localities in terms of state suburbs we ( some of the editors above here ) have been through this all before, and it is the total misapplication of the state suburbs - they are neither valid localities or even entities of any legal sense - they are invented statistical entities and not in any real sense anything that could or should be used. For background please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_12#Category:Suburbs_of_West_Coast,_Tasmania. Please consider that the issue has been covered already, and that this Afd is simply an affirmation of the issues raised in April 2016. Thanks. JarrahTree 10:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as author of the article in question, and of a draft merged article. Personal disagreement with the way the government has chosen to name its pieces of dirt is not a good reason to delete useful information. Downsize43 (talk) 23:48, 1 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmartForm

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

It exists and has some coverage - it is borderline hence sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years. It is hard to separate the promotion from the information. It doesn't seem notable by any criteria except GNG, and I don't think it has the level of coverage for GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is still a legitimate and helpful page, especially with the dramatic increase in Smart Forms this year with covid. I think it it satisfies GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No, this does not satisfy the GNG. None of the non-primary (and I do emphasize that) sources are more than casual mentions or namedrops. Being "legitimate" or "helpful" meet no policy or guideline criterion to keep, and whether more people are using this thing or not -- entirely speculative -- does not by that reason alone generate significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject. Ravenswing 07:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough significant and independent coverage to establish notability. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have enough independent coverage to be notable. Nika2020 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all of the dead links and confused wording, it's confusing whether this article is trying to establish promoting a non-notable generic neologism or a non-notable commercial product, but either way it fails wp:notability as such. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 30 July 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock (Indian Web Series)

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

Self published sources. do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Creator has already declared a paid editor by ZEE5. Note: the user only creates article for ZEE5. Please check here. DMySon 11:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable program, fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the draft of same article is also there Draft:Unlock (film)

2405:204:A1AD:2FB7:9169:1FC6:33AD:9AE0 (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 09:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now has some secondary sources in the article including a review from The Times of India, a national newspaper, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator is blocked as per sock puppet investigation. DMySon 12:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete excluding primary sources, all I could find was press releases/paid articles-advertisements for marketing of the film. Regarding the times of India review, according to a consensus achieved ar RSN, TOI is not a reliable source. imv. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable for film reviews if you read the discussion Atlantic306 (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TOI is known for promotion, and paid articles including movie reciews. In either case, WP:NFO states: [The film is notable if] it is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The TOI makes it one. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Haven't seen any evidence that their film reviews have been paid for ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect them to include a statement something like "we published this article in return of covert payment from the subject, but please dont tell anybody"? —usernamekiran (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep imo it is backed up by some reliable sources. Times of india is considered as a must used source, more on less each article in the mainspace has one sources from "times". Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 13:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor recently created its account and only interested to create articles for ZEE5 programs. Also doing mass Welcome for newly created accounts. I have doubt of being Sock Puppeteer with User:KevinThomas71293. DMySon 03:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMySon: Well I edit wikipedia for passion and learning, I develop interested so I joined wikipedia. I'm not working with any company or getting paid for editing. If joining wikipedia means that you have to work for someone or for organization. Then I'm ready to give up my editings privilege. I'm not understanding what's wrong in it if I'm welcoming new editor with a welcome message. If I'm you believe I'm wrong, you can go ahead and block me, no need to investigate, as check user may have some other important work to do. I myself retire. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 12:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-welcoming users with almost zero edits is most likely pointless as many, many accounts created a day never become active. You may want to look at WP:WC for more information about welcoming new users. DMySon 06:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly promo pieces and near no significant independent coverage of the film. Times of India reviews are occassionally subject to undisclosed payments and would need additional reviews from other sources to be considered substantial. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ (see below): Times of India, FilmiBeat and Binged are possibly all usable, but I'm not certain of the reliability of the last two. — Bilorv (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: last two? The times of india has been declared as unreliable source, and paid in most cases. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: Source? I've previously read that it's reliable but I do see that it's yellow at WP:RSP. No mention that it does reviews in exchange for payment, which presumably should be part of the description if true. I notice also that its review of Unlock is negative, not that this is by itself proof that the review is independent. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Hi. it is very common knowledge in india that TOI of paid media, especially when it comes to entertainment. Talking about the negative review, it is not entirely negative, just partially enough so that viewers would still remain intrigued and go watch that movie. It is possible this review maybe be paid. TOI is considered semi-reliable for fact checking, but I think it should not be used to establish notability. Like in this case, we can use it to verify the cast, but we shouldnt use it to establish the notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, to allow substantive discussion of the sources some !voters are describing as reliable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: Binged looks like another OTT platform which also provides news-reviews for some reason, no clue how to deal with that but it has some sort of CoI for sure and Filmibeat is a OneIndia derivative which is just plain unreliable. While it is hard to say if this one is paid for, I would not solely rely on ToI as an indicator of notability of a movie/series. The Times Group is possibly the worse offender when it comes to paid-for news in India. For example, look at this report from the Press Council. The RSP entry doesn't do enough justice to it, imv. Its pro-government stance is partly a consequence of dependence on government ads, might as well be the same as an ad agency at this point. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to delete per usernamekiran and Tayi Arajakate, whom I both thank for the information. Perhaps we could gather momentum to add more info to the Times of India entry at RSP, since I don't believe its description text specifically was the subject of an RfC. — Bilorv (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, Perhaps but the discussion in the Times of India RfC doesn't seem to have mentioned this a lot so it might not be appropriate to add it without another RfC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of IEEE milestones

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

This almost entirely unreferenced list is a mess that fails WP:NLIST and worse, it seems to be full of OR/SYNTH. It is called a list of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers milestones, and my first thought was to suggest a merge to Institute_of_Electrical_and_Electronics_Engineers#History, but due to the lack of references, there is little to merge. Much worse is the problem that the name is misleading, this seems to be more like a fork of Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering (not an article in the great shape, but that's for another time). IEEE was founded in 1963, but a big chunk of this list deals with things that happened before 1963, going as far back as Benjamin Franklin (not ambitious enough, why not date the first IEEE milestone to 2750 BC as the other list does?). Even for most later stuff there is no indication that many inventions and such are directly related to the IEEE as an organization (like the introduction of the Apple computer series). The list also ends in 1989 despite IEEE still existing and doing quite well. Bottom line, this is an improperly labelled fork of an existing article, with no referenced content to merge and not worth or redirecting due to misleading title. Suggesting WP:TNT treatment. PS. This seems to be a fork of https://ethw.org/Milestones:List_of_IEEE_Milestones (which also can raise some copuvio issues, depending on which list was first - ours or theirs?) and at best I can assume this is a badly thought name for 'milestones in the history of electrical and electical engineering according to IEEE', and hence a reminder - don't let engineeres name anything. Not sure if the IEEE wiki is RS, if it is, at best the external link section can be copied to the linked timeline article before this one goes under._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 06:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't understand how the list can be considered “almost entirely unreferenced”, since it references https://ethw.org/Milestones:List_of_IEEE_Milestones, which is a complete list of the milestones. The list starts before the foundation of the IEEE because it’s not about milestones achieved by the IEEE, it’s about events declared by the IEEE to be milestones. The list ends at 1989 because that’s currently the most recent milestone - the IEEE doesn’t declare something to be a milestone until long after the event (e.g., the 1989 milestone was declared in 2017). --Zundark (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ethw.org is itself a wiki, so I'm not convinced it counts as a RS, as per WP:USERGENERATED. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Zundark: the IEEE is an authoritative international organization, a reference to their list of milestones is a trusted source. You might compare this list with a list of World Heritage Sites, declared by the UN. Brienanni (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to another IEEE article. ~~Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering perhaps would be best~~, given this article seems to go beyond IEEE activities. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the earliest dates, from Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers#Origins, arguably can count some activities before 1963 as well. But still, this article goes beyond even that, though also AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP... Still a large overlap with the main timeline article in any case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I misinterpretted what this list was (as did some others it seems). http://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/Milestone_Guidelines_and_How_to_Propose_a_Milestone clarifies it. I still don't believe it should merely repeat existing content though from another website. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it repeats the other copyrighted list exactly, we may have a copyvio problem. And if it doesn't then it becomes OR, as in - if this is a list of milestones as listed by IEEE, we can't go beyond it and milestones they didn't include... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not copy the IEEE list exactly: the IEEE list has a one-paragraph description of each entry, which here is replaced by hyperlinks to other WP articles. The entries themselves are the same, but we also have lists of Nobel prizes which are in one-to-one correspondence with those from the Nobel Foundation... Brienanni (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, to make the list itself notable for Wikipedia it needs some significant independant coverage, i.e. not published by IEEE or the place being listed as a milestone. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The IEEE is a very well-established professional engineering organization, and this list should exactly reflect their own "List of IEEE milestones". If you don't understand the IEEE or its history, I suggest that you study up. Daderot (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (perhaps selectively) with Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering. That article is tagged that it has been cut down by removing offending material. Yes IEEE is a respectable professional body, but this is a history of its subject, not a history of IEEE. Timelines like this are often better for being unreferenced: their objective is as a navigation tool, pointing to a series of articles, which should of course be properly referneced. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering per above. Changed !vote from Delete // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scenic Valley Ranchos, California

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

"Welcome to Calaveras County and Western Alpine County" comes through again for GNIS, in this case with what appears to be a completely fictitious subdivision— at least, I couldn't find any trace of it, even in the real estate listings (as opposed to just clickbait). Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC), 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If this is a real place, it's not a notable one. –dlthewave ☎ 04:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense sponsored by chamber of commerce or some other commercial interest. GNIS sinks to a new low. Probably doesn't exist and certainly isn't notable. Glendoremus (talk) 19:58, 31 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Shores of Poker Flat, California

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

I don't know who at GNIS thought that "Welcome to Calaveras County and Western Alpine County" was a good source, but at any rate this is a gated community. Period. The only substantial material I found was local news coverage of a very typical property dispute. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 12:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subdivisions are not notable, no sigcov. Reywas92^Talk 07:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable location. --Lockley (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saran Shakthi

AfDs for this article:

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. No indication of wp:notability. I looked up the listed movies and did not sat in them. Coverage is a few shorter writeups covering some aspect. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 12:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of fictional vehicles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional buses

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

I don't see how this unreferenced list meets ~~WP:NLIST~~WP:LISTN/WP:NFICTION/GNG. Deprodded with a link to [44] which suggests there is potential for the 'in popular culture' section at the article for Bus or perhaps an entire article about this, but there is little to salvage from his unreferenced list for either or such ideas. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Only two link to articles, the rest are redirects. Dream Focus 03:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep im fed up of anti fiction deletionsts on Wikipedia who want to move all fictional content to the ad laden fandom wikis. 163.170.130.6 (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Relax dude. This list is simply too short (at its current stage) to be a seperate article. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 17:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree that this page is too short, but I do feel like the Ip editor brings up an important issues that Wikipedia has, there has been a ton of deletions recently of fiction which I believe may have been done far too hastely.★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Piotrus, did you mean WP:LISTN? WP:NLIST is about lists of people. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops, of course, fixed. Thanks for the ping. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough valid links to warrant a list. Ajf773 (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To which guideline do you refer? There's no requirement that list items be individually notable (although it may be a criteria for some lists.) pburka (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ("One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.") or merge with List of fictional vehicles. pburka (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Light Merge - to List of fictional vehicles - The single source, while not bad, is the only one found so far, and generally topics need to have multiple sources to establish notability. Even WP:LISTN indicates that stand alone lists need to be discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. There really is not enough there for this to pass WP:LISTN as a list or the WP:GNG as an article on its own, but could easily be used to support the broader topic of fictional vehicles, and the examples in this list that are actually mentioned in that one cited paper can be merged to that article. I do want to point out that there is a difference between a fictional bus and a real-world bus that just happens to appear in fiction, since it wouldn't be particularly helpful if that list becomes glutted with every time a bus happened to show up in a movie or TV show. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of fictional vehicles. Shorter lists are inside this article. If anyone can find more fictional busses and them, then Keep. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 16:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Light merge per Rorshacma—who also makes the excellent point that fictional buses ≠ buses in fiction. Presumably Otto Mann's bus or the buses in On the Buses shouldn't be included, for instance. (Suggest that if the article is to be kept, it needs a criterion for inclusion: perhaps that the buses are notable, or that they're given a name.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to the book I mentioned when I deprodded the page, I've found a journal paper in College Literature which explicitly connects Steinbeck's "Sweetheart" to Speed's "25/25", and discusses the motif of buses in American fiction (although most of the actual buses are generic unnamed vehicles). pburka (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka, The sources you've found seem great for a "buses in popular culture" article (or perhaps more specifically "buses in American fiction"), but this feels like a case for WP:TNT to be applied—to me, that seems like a fundamentally different (and indeed better) article than the one we've got here. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have a better article about buses in fiction? Hell yes. There's clearly a lot of material on this topic that we could draw on to write an in depth article about the topic. Does that mean we should demolish this perfectly serviceable list article? I don't think so. This is like the town that demolishes its shabby Victorian train station to make room for a proposed skyscraper with no financing in place, leaving an overgrown empty lot in the town center for decades. We can have a list and a deeper prose article; but nobody's lining up to write that page, and we've got this one that just needs a bit of cleanup. pburka (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka, I grew up in that town! I suppose my point is that at the point all that material was added, this would no longer be a "list of fictional buses" article, so it makes more sense to start that afresh. TNT wasn't quite appropriate here for what I'm suggesting, I guess—in particular, I'm not advocating deleting anything wholesale, just moving (most of) the examples somewhere else. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we were neighbours growing up! I don't object to moving the content (in fact I initially proposed that). I do think the List of fictional vehicles page is a bit of a mess, and might serve us best as a simple list of lists. pburka (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that List of fictional cars also claims that its scope includes buses, but there seems to be only one (The Big Bus's "Cyclops") currently present.) pburka (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional vehicles. // Timothy :: talk 23:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another drive-by. The nomination admits at the outset that there are sensible alternatives to deletion and we have more suggestions above. The page already has some reasonable sources and there are more to find such as Omnibuses in fın-de-siècle Short Stories and Journalism; The 7 Best Movies About Public Transport; The Bus as Metaphor in Contemporary Nigerian Fiction; &c. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to List of fictional vehicles, which can handle it & make it more comprehensive.Djflem (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to List of fictional vehicles, I just don't see there being enough notable examples to have a separate list.★Trekker (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of fictional vehicles for now. These kinds of lists are a hit or miss at AFD, and we are due to find a more consistent solution. Many of them accumulate a lot of messy and inaccurate trivia, and are often worse than just viewing the category. But until we find a way to turn categories into dynamics lists somehow, I think we're going to keep having case-by-case discussions like this. And we'll have to find a consensus one-by-one. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:15, 28 July 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.

[2005UCSDG-1] Federis, Martha (May 26, 2005). "Study finds lack of UC female faculty" (PDF). UCSD Guardian. Retrieved July 18, 2020. West and several others began to raise concerns over the hiring issue with the California Legislature. She and her colleagues approached State Senator Jackie Speier (D - San Francisco/San Mateo), who held hearings during three consecutive years in 2001, 2003, and 2003. The report also details the testimonies of professors from various campuses during the hearings.

[2001BIHE-2] "UC Hiring Fewer Women Professors after Prop. 209". Black Issues in Higher Education. March 1, 2001. Retrieved July 18, 2020. The University of California has hired fewer female faculty following passage of anti-affirmative action ballot measure Proposition 209, creating a gender gap that needs bridging, women professors from across the 10-campus system said recently. 'We are in serious discrimination mode at the university,' says UC Davis law professor Martha West, one of more than a dozen professors who spoke at a state Senate hearing on UC hiring.

[EBT2005-3] Maitre, Michelle (May 19, 2005). "Study says not enough UC female faculty". East Bay Times. Retrieved July 18, 2020. More than 45 percent of the doctorate degrees awarded in 2003 went to women, said Martha West, a UC Davis law professor and lead author of the report, 'Unprecedented Urgency: Gender Discrimination in Faculty Hiring at the University of California.' 'If women are going to be left out of this 10-year hiring surge, it means we're not going to have representative women on the faculty for the next 20 to 30 years,' West said.

[SFG2005-4] Schevitz, Tanya (May 18, 2005). "Study finds UC lags in women on faculty / Hiring levels lower than in mid-'90s". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved July 18, 2020. At stake is nothing less than the orientation of the nation's higher education system for a generation to come, because UC is in the middle of a 10- year plan of replacing thousands of retiring faculty, said UC Davis employment law Professor Martha West, one of the authors of the report titled 'Unprecedented Urgency: Gender Discrimination in Faculty Hiring at the University of California.'

[NYT_2005-5] Lewin, Tamar (December 7, 2018). "University of California Faulted on Hiring of Women". NYT. Retrieved July 25, 2020. A new report by four professors at the University of California at Davis has found that despite an unusual hiring wave and a steady increase in the number of women in the Ph.D. applicant pool, the University of California still lags in hiring women...Martha West, the lead author of the new report, who has worked on the issue for years, said that as the number of women earning Ph.D.'s increased, the rate of female faculty hiring should be growing much faster than currently.

[6] ttps://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-zilliqa-blockchain-could-change-enterprise-2017-11-30

[7] "Shaik-ul-Islam Trust holds 4-day spiritual meeting in Mysuru". www.citytoday.news.

[8] "Muslims at unrest across Globe says Islamic Scholar Madani Miya". www.siasat.com.

[9] "Islamic Scholar Hazarath Mufti Syed Mohd Madni Miyan to lead Jumma prayer at Masjid Azam tomorrow". www.citytoday.news.

[10] ttps://urdu.siasat.com/news/%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B4%DB%8C%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%DA%A9%DB%8C-%D8%AD%DB%8C%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A2%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D9%85%DB%8C%DA%BA-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%AF-1056636/

[11] ttps://starofmysore.com/islamic-scholar-in-mysuru/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]