< 19 April 21 April >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apogee Electronics

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. The only significant coverage found during a WP:BEFORE is the single Mix Online reference. Other references are either unreliable or mention the organization in passing without providing any detail. There must be multiple independent reliable secondary sources providing SIGCOV for an article to satisfy the guideline's criteria. Spectrum ((UV)) 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music Connection notes, "Companies like Sony and Mitsubishi began using Apogee's conversation filters in their larger systems — which led to a substantial difference in sound quality. ... Apogee became an innovator in making studio quality recording available to users at all levels, from multi-channel installation in a commercial facility to personal audio interface in a home environment. Today, its converters and audio interfaces are regarded as the reference standard in the industry, as evidenced by their use on recordings by Lady Gaga, The Rolling Stones, Taylor Swift, Jay-Z, The Chainsmokers, Foo Fighters, Beyonce, Alabama Shakes and Ryan Tedder."

    Sound on Sound notes, "Apogee Electronics were founded in 1985, right at the dawn of the pro‑audio digital age, and initially made a name for themselves making replacement anti‑alias and reconstruction filter blocks for the leading digital recorders of the day. ... In more recent years, the Rosetta and X‑Series continued Apogee's reputation for high-quality converters ..."

    TONEAudio notes, "Founded in 1985, Apogee Electronics is highly regarded by audio professionals and recording musicians for its advanced, high-performance AD/DA converters and audio interfaces. Apogee’s award-winning audio interface, the Symphony, is widely considered to be a reference standard in major recording studios around the world."

    Mix notes, "In a world where technology is constantly changing, the survival of a small company specializing in digital products is unusual. However, Apogee Electronics is not your usual company."

    Cunard (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most consecutive volleyball victories in all competitions

[edit]
Most consecutive volleyball victories in all competitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think that this meets WP:LISTN, it's basically just a Guinness World Record as far as I can tell. This falls afoul of WP:IINFO as well. signed, Rosguill talk 23:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa Club

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

Failing WP:NORG. Sources are apparently based on press-kits. Lack of substantive coverage in independent, reliable media. Sources 1 and 7 are unrelated. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bart van de Ven

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

Scant coverage doesn't point to notability. Of the five sources provided, I don't have access to two, but the others confer no sense of notability. One of them is to an older article in Het Laatste Nieuws, in which I found a couple of other articles mentioning his name, but only in passing. I find no other significant, independent coverage of him. Google Scholar cites a number of papers co-written by a Bart van de Ven also from Ghent, but that Bart van de Ven's field is psychology. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walker (band)

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG, the only coverage worth considering toward GNG is [1], which is threadbare as far as coverage and written up in a local section of the Independent. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal; however, the article definitely needs improvement. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 21:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye Birdie (1995 film)

[edit]
Bye Bye Birdie (1995 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD with rationale Unsourced, mainly a casting list and a small blurb. was removed before fixing the verifiability issue mentioned. Therefore I'm listing it here, as it has no sources, consists of a cast and song list with no actual encyclopedic content (besides a very small lead section). WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note as well, so it likely also fails WP:NFILM. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 20:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered dratifying but at the time there was little encyclopedic content. Nominated simply because they removed the PROD without fixing the issues listed. Will withdraw if issues are fixed, obviously. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 21:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify how I performed WP:BEFORE, I recognized Jason Alexander as a famous enough actor and put in the search query bye bye birdie jason alexander. When I saw the Variety review, I added review to the query and found the other reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie (cannabis company)

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

Three independant mentions, this passing mention from the Associated Press and these [2][3] two longer articles about their "Tiger King inspired strain". In my view not sufficient to demonstrate WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Polick

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

Non notable actor, currently the only external link is IMDB. I have completed WP:BEFORE and cannot find anything substantial.

This was first nominated for AfD in 2010, when it was deemed that his “cult status” in Jackass made him “notable”. There appear to be no substantial sources to back up this claim. Looking through his IMDb credits, it’s clear that all of his other roles were minor or uncredited.

Since 2010, there have been no sources added to the article and no major edits either. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Grinding / For a Better Day

[edit]
Pure Grinding / For a Better Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment those sources talk about the individual songs both of which have their own articles. However, because the EP itself is only containing two songs and didn't chart itself, its not notable. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 08:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Lita

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic and WP:GNG. Not overly promotional but does read like a CV. No evidence that papers are notable, and publications do not make a subject notable without more (per WP:Academic) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pran Sukh Yadav

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

This article has been deleted thrice before (twice prodded for failing GNG; once for copyvio) and has recently been subject of an edit war over which unsourced version is preferable. Searching for sources, I find only trivial mentions in unreliable sources such as this website, book published by ISHA and another book titled Freedom Struggle of 1857 published by "Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd" that I cannot link to since it is on the spam-blacklist. All three sources copy freely from each other despite supposedly having different authors and publishers (ISHA Books is known for such practices of copying content from wikipedia etc and publishing books with apparently fictitious authors and editors).
If deleted, the page may need to be salted. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Giusfredi

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. No article exists on this subject in Italian Wikipedia. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Allori

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [7]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Menicucci

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [8]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7, WP:SNOW – bradv🍁 01:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Police brutality amid lockdown

[edit]
Indian Police brutality amid lockdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks WP:NPOV and has no reliable references to the claims made in the article. If its found to be notable as per consensus, I propose it to be merged with 2020 coronavirus lockdown in India. Amkgp (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Broletti

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [9]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ornella Fiorentini

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [10]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matilde Calamai

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [11]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some argument has been made for notability but there is general consensus that this is TOOSOON. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toby-Alexander Smith

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

Smith does not meet WP:NACTOR. DarkGlow (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smith played a smaller role in Mamma Mia!'s long-running London production, but he understudied Sky, a bigger role. He also performed on television in the Laurence Olivier Awards broadcasts in 2013 and 2014. The article doesn't mention his concert at the Palladium, which could be added. Since 2016, he has been guest-starring steadily on TV. His role in Doctors in 2018 was the leading role of the episode on which he guest-starred. EastEnders is his first role as a series regular, but it has drawn interest, and it seems seems silly to delete the article when, objectively, it is almost certain that he will have more significant TV roles. I'd say that this is a case where the letter of WP:NACTOR should bow to the general spirit of the notability rules. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He just started on the show in 2019, and although it seems like a popular show, he doesn't even appear in the EastEnders page as a listed character (or on the Mamma Mia! page as an actor).
  • I don't think it means much that he was an understudy for a main part in Mamma Mia!; that doesn't make him notable.
  • Having a concert also does not confer notability.
  • Notability requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; a lot of his news references feel like tabloid (see WP:SBST).
If his career picks up and he gets more notable parts, then an article in the future might be warranted, but delete for now. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Somalia

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

A very small community, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kashmir Walla

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

Does not meet basic notability criteria. No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject WP:ORGCRITE. DTM (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Fantini

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [12]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Bianchi

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [13]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Vavuso

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [14]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Michael Musone

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [15] The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Pergola Arte

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

Promotional article that fails NCORP. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Brogi

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. Was deleted three times on Italian Wikipedia [16] for promotion.

This article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte, which I will be nominating all at once, and will explain that cluster here (but not on every single deletion nomination). They have been created by two SPA accounts Arenavittorio and Amazingart67. Most of these articles derive their notability from the "literary competition "Lilly Brogi La Pergola Arte" award," for which I could find no WP:RS. I will be nominating the cluster of articles:

  1. Lilly Brogi
  2. Peter Michael Musone
  3. Vincenzo Vavuso
  4. La Pergola Arte
  5. Giancarlo Bianchi
  6. Mario Fantini
  7. Matilde Calamai
  8. Ornella Fiorentini
  9. Gino Broletti
  10. Daniele Menicucci
  11. Umberto Allori
  12. Alfredo Vernacotola
  13. Nicola Giusfredi

I have flagged Claudio Kevo Cavallini, Mauro Montacchiesi, and Anna Balsamo for notability, but have not deleted -- others may choose to do so, especially if they can evaluate the sources in italian.

I have cross-referenced Italian Wikipedia: The majority of these subjects have been deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], No articles on La Pergola Arte, Alfredo Vernacotola, and Nicola Giusfredi were attempted to be created on Italian Wikipedia.

I first noticed this cluster of articles two years ago, and flagged many of them at the time. I have followed them, and not seen any improvement. Despite what seems like a major bulk delete, I have been careful to look at each of these over time. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony D'Algy

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

The article is sourced only to IMDb which is not a reliable source. My search for other sources came up with directory listings and the non-reliable Find a Grave, but no sources providing indepth coverage. The unticle has been tagged as unsourced since 2014, and has existed for 13 years. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of every person who ever had a credited part in a film. We need reliable secondary sources to show that people actually had impactful acting careers. The number of articles on actors and actresses sourced only to IMDb is staggering, and the refusal to accept that as reasonable grounds to prod delete articles, and the refusal of those who remoal the proposed deletion tags from articles to add any other sourced besides IMDb in the process means we are currently in a situation where we have lots of under sourced articles on actors and actresses. Many of these are not much more than bare filmographies which is its ownproblem. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the discussion that Lambert alludes to in his "The number of articles on actors and actresses sourced only to IMDb is staggering, and the refusal to accept that as reasonable grounds to prod delete articles, and the refusal of those who remoal the proposed deletion tags from articles..." comment. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I speak fluent Portuguese, I wasn't able to find other portuguese sources. However one of the sources you found is from the Diário de Notícias, a well known Newspaper of record in Portugal. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources above yields 3 critiques from the New York Times with his own name, therefore I'm leaning Keep. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Davis (American football coach)

[edit]
Andy Davis (American football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a single primary reference, which was simply a link to the league home page. It is a generic name, but there is nothing in these searches that looks like this coach has any inherent notability. Yosemiter (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference in the article led to a site that has since been changed to what appears to be a Japanese site of some kind. It might be harmful so I've removed it. I've added an archive link. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Schultz

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, the only source I could find were of the Wiffle Ball league he's commissioner of (not really an independent source), and an interview with NPR [25], which is a primary source, since it's an interview. Primary sources do not establish notability. Hog Farm (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ambler

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

Page seems to fail WP:BASIC. The subject seems to fall under WP:BIO1E, with almost all coverage centering on a Huffpost article from 2009. In a related manner, there is a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, with most appearing near the 2009 date.

My review of the seemingly strongest sources show that they do not cover all necessary criteria to support notability. Interviews tend to be short and promotional, with no in-depth coverage by secondary figures. (There are also some in which Ambler plays a more 'expert' role, but these don't contribute to notability). Jlevi (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jlevi (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONTN says the "present state of the article," or "Article content" does not determine notability. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my argument - it's that it doesn't now, and that this is after cleaning the nonsense out - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse too long discussion, to substitute short summary

Note the usual recruiting of huge anti-fans here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Harold_Ambler, and the removal of secondary sourcing leading up to this Afd.[26] Ambler has been covered from 2009 through 2017, in numerous independent, reliable sources (as well as many less reliable blog type secondary sources). Ambler's 2009 piece "Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted" was the third-most e-mailed blogger piece on The Huffington Post for more than 18 months. His 2009 book, Ever True: The History of Brown Crew, got attention on TV and radio (and is referenced in Wikipedia). His 2011 book, Don't Sell Your Coat, was endorsed by Freeman Dyson (and others): "How did the good politics of social justice become chained to the bad science of global warming? Read Don't Sell Your Coat to find out." - Freeman Dyson. In 2012 he was interviewed extensively about his background, books, controversies, science and politics views, etc. on WBLQ radio, and on MRC TV. Not only is there significant secondary coverage, but there is (I think it's called) tertiary coverage of his TV appearance, in a report by Union of Concerned Scientists.[27] In 2009, 2012, and 2013 he was on Fox TV several times for several minutes each for interviews about his views, books, politics, controversies, etc. In 2014 he was a speaker at the Libertarian party National convention. In 2017 his views were covered in a paragraph in The_Spokesman-Review, about equally with Allan_Savory, Michael Crichton and Joel Salatin, as examples of climate skeptics.[28] Ambler got significant attention (pages) in independent books in 2010 and 2014. Plus he has a music career from 2007 to ~present, with some notice in independent reliable sources. So, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but this looks more like WP:SUSTAINED to me anyway. WP:BLP1E is "often misapplied" as it is being misapplied here - See Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you could highlight the top two or three sources that you feel follow the WP:BASIC criteria, that may help subsequent reviewers sort all of this out. Jlevi (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two specific references are linked in the above comment, both failing WP:BASIC. The first is just one out of four quotes used as an examples of 'denigrating climate science.' This doesn't qualify as significant coverage, and the coverage is primarily of media outlets, rather than of Ambler himself. The second is a single paragraph, and so again fails significant coverage. I don't suggest that these are the strongest sources, but strong sources have not yet been highlighted specifically. Jlevi (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff cleaned out was a completely standard WP:REFBOMBing, e.g. all the "citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree." It wasn't good and didn't add notability - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Videos and audios are worth thousands of words, so the following videos, and one book at the end: 2009, ~5.5 minutes on Fox News Red Eye re: Ambler's blog, HuffPost piece, why, what happened, his background and experiences, whether people take science and climate seriously, his wife's reaction, musician with interest in sports and climate, celebrities and qualifications, his book Ever True: History of Brown Crew and connection with climate interest, mentions his future book on climate, background as rower and surfer.[29] 2012, 5 minutes on Fox Business, Varney and Co. re: book Don't Sell Your Coat, affects on his ability to publish, why a skeptic, what he did to investigate, credentials, celebritites, historical climate perspective, answering questions from 3 panelists, family, environment, pollution, etc.[30] 2012, almost 5 minutes Fox Business, Varney and Co. re: Celebrities Posing as Environmental Experts, influence, pollution, climate trends and calls for reduced CO2 emissions, clarifying CO2 effects and magnitudes in historical context, Keystone pipeline, big oil and fuel benefits, 3rd world, travel.[31] 2012, 22 Minutes on Spatharakis' radio show on WBLQ, re: background, Don't Sell Your Coat, background, Q/A...[32] 2012, 24 Minutes on Spatharakis' radio show on WBLQ, re: Music career, performing, Q/A, move to Austin and return, connections with climate skepticism reactions... [33] 2012, 3 minutes (2:20-5:15) on MRC TV discussing H. Clinton's visit to the Artic, and climate-related history and manipulation of perceptions, etc.[34] 2013, 2.5+ minutes on Fox Business, called a "sensible environmentalist," answered questions and discussed tar sands oil extraction and CO2, Keystone pipeline, Nasa/Hansen, carbon footprints versus moral footprints, benefits of low cost fossil fuels for poor people.[35] and 2014, 3 pages coverage in book The Joy of Hate.[36] -- Yae4 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a very lengthy reply with a whole lot of sources, several of which I have already discussed specifically. Have you got two that satisfy WP:BASIC? I recognize that flooding tons of sources might seem like a reasonable strategy, but for me I just need two(ish) good ones. I feel like they haven't yet been provided yet, and that is exactly the problem. Jlevi (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of this problem with sourcing so far, the Red Eye interview is discussed in particular in this diff. To review, the short, promotional, Ambler-focused, and non-analytical nature of the Red Eye interview means that it cannot count towards the WP:BASIC notability requirements because it is a primary and non-independent source. Given that the Red Eye interview is included in the sources listed above as suitable for showing notability, I feel that it is reasonable to ask for a slimmer set of sources for consideration. Jlevi (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The guy has been on TV and radio numerous times, for much more than "soundbites," over several years. I've listed elapsed times and summaries, so pick however many you have time or interest to review. We disagree on what a Q/A interview counts towards, or whether a program is independent of the person being interviewed. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on radio and TV numerous times, and that doesn't contribute to my Wikipedia notability. Please answer in terms of WP:GNG and sub-pages of it, not this repeated handwaving - what are the sources that convincingly establish notability, per the letter of the Wikipedia notability guidelines? This will form a convincing argument. Remember, you're trying to convince people who don't already agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard, I hate to compare, because it may look like casting aspersions, so I'll start with a point of agreement: "The encyclopedia is primary, not writing and discussing rules and policies."[37] I agree. Since you suggested a notability comparison: There are a couple similarities, but a lot of differences, supporting Ambler's notability. Similarity: Both advocate against a kind of hysteria (Ambler-Climate or Gerard-Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency). Similarity, but with magnitude and scope difference: Ambler wrote two published books on widely different topics - history of rowing (~600 pages), and climate (270 pages), with some connections; Gerard recently self-published one (180 pages). Ambler wrote or edited for several prominent publications over several years. Contrary to what Jlevi says, people interview and ask about Ambler the person- his experiences, his involvement in controversy, how it affected him and his family, his motivations, his music, his writing on more than just one topic, his art - music, finances, selling his guitar, and getting it back; not just what he says about a boring, nerdy topic. This is seen or heard in the TV and radio links already given. Ambler gets outdoors in the weather and does interesting things - rowing, surfing, performing music, and also writes about interesting things; Gerard writes about a nerdy computer-related topic. Ambler talks, in broadcast interviews, about people who mostly sit indoors looking at screens; Gerard may be one? Ambler was included in speeches in the US Senate.[38][39] Does Gerard appear in Parliament speeches? A "TV star" described Ambler, among 3 pages coverage in an independently published book, as "a charming, good-looking person to star in one of those commercials for the New York Times Sunday edition..."[40]; I did not find similar about Gerard (not to say it doesn't exist). Ambler's first book, Ever True, has been a source in Wikipedia since 2011.[41] AFAIK, Ambler is not involved in Wikipedia, and there are no arguably promotional links to his web pages and books, aside from this new Article; Gerard's 2017 book appears only in (many) Talk pages and User pages, more than a couple times in context of potential COI concerns being raised.[42] Web crawlers know all about Gerard's WP User page and associated links (to personal/business pages).[43][44] Ambler has WP:SUSTAINED independent coverage for over a decade; Blockchain (or Gerard) has 2-3 years? -- Yae4 (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more concise, limited set of sources, in chronological order, showing 5+ years of significant, independent coverage. (Claims of "copyvio" issues with a couple links are being dealt with.)

2009 HuffPost piece. Signficant, independent coverage at HuffPost and elsewhere.
2009 First book published, Ever True History of Brown Crew. Referenced at Brown Crew.
2009 5.5 minutes interview on Fox News Red Eye.[45]
2011 Second book published, Don't Sell Your Coat.
2012 5 minutes on Fox Business, Varney and Co.[46]
2012, 46 minutes on Spatharakis' radio show[47][48] on WBLQ, in high population region.[49][50]
2012 3 minutes (2:20-5:15) on MRC TV re H. Clinton.[51]
2013, 2.5+ minutes on Fox Business, re Keystone pipeline.[52]
2014, 3 pages independent coverage in book, The Joy of Hate.[53]

These cover Ambler's personal life, personal experiences, and personal motivations for developing both books. The subject of these interviews is Ambler, and the coverage spans both of his books. Books are not "events", and in any case, Ambler has written two notable books, not one. Ambler is also not a low-profile individual, as he has given interviews to notable broadcasts including Fox News and WBLQ, and professionally performs music. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will cover these in order.
Huffpost: Not intrinsically notable, and notability of an article is not the same as notability of its author. Which of these provides significant coverage Ambler as an individual? Of those, which comes from a reliable source? And are they independent?
A book is not intrinsically notable, its notability does not necessarily confer notability to its author, and it would be a primary source with respect to Ambler. Most related materials appear promotional.
2009 Red Eye interview: This diff
second book: similar to the first book
Fox Business: I can't get this video to load. Could you perhaps provide timestamps for secondary coverage from the interviewer? It's highly likely to have the same promotional/fanboy problems of the Red Eye interview
2012 radio shows: As shown by our discussion on interview notability, this is a tricky piece of the puzzle, and should not stand without consideration. Are you able to address the questions raised in the discussion above?
MRCTV is just a video hosting site (I think?). The Weather Wise-Guys would need to be evaluated separately as a source, and this probably falls under WP:USERGEN. Haven't looked into it, however.
Joy of Hate: Alongside the long interviews, this is the other source that might help support a keep position. Note that the primary focus of the piece is the Huffpost event, though some other details are mentioned in the first paragraph. In addition, the source is pretty clearly
So the three pieces that need to be carefully evaluated are the two long interviews and Joy of Hate. In addition, there may be some source elided from the above list. Those are my quick comments. Jlevi (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn, That quote is also a (too subtle) reference to cartoonist Cook and blogger Nuccitelli's paper that "was the most downloaded paper for that week across all Institute of Physics' journals,[18]" which was deemed worthy of mention, while not mentioning the paper needed correction, twice. See Skeptical_Science#Projects. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between whether an article should be created at all and whether certain details should be contained in the article. The first is a question of WP:notability. The when asking whether a particular detail about a notable topic is itself WP:NOTEWORTHY, that is a matter of WP:DUE weight and other content policies. A deletion discussion is one primarily of WP:Notability by various measures. Jlevi (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tivolisaga (Original Swedish Cast Recording)

[edit]
Tivolisaga (Original Swedish Cast Recording) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. There are some reviews in Swedish newspapers about the play, but I can't find any reviews about the album itself, and without an article for the play a redirect there isn't possible. I'm not convinced about a redirect to the bluelinked co-author of the play, either – he was only one of the writers and not one of the main performers on the album. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlem Fekih

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

non notable actress, paid for spam, see also relevant discussions here on Fr wiki and here on arwiki. No coverage in english, french or arabic. Praxidicae (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Brickey

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

Non notable artist. Fails NARTIST, due to lack of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. He is included in one regional art museum collection, not two. Most coverage is trivial, see [54] [55]. Theredproject (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hachem Gaddouch

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

non-notable youtuber, can't find any coverage in independent sources in English or Arabic (or any other relevant languages) Praxidicae (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endless, Nameless (song)

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

First things first this song was only ever a bonus track or "hidden" track on some copes of the album it was from. That for a start means it is not that notable. The information provided by the sources seem to repeatedly describe how the band leader "was pissed off" and so trashed their instruments and the studio while still being recorded. apart from the other releases where it appears as a b-side and on a rarities box set, I really don't see how this conforms to Wikipedia:Notability (music) QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Caro7200: no, the song doesn't have WP:INHERITED notability from its parent album... it has to pass WP:NSONG on its own merits. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: It is not a case of strictly--or only--inherited notability . . . iconic albums are by definition made up of notable songs in a way that merely classic or excellent ones are not. The text of the article, and its sources, demonstrate notability, in my opinion. My "vote" is still keep. Caro7200 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean that every song on a "classic" album will necessarily merit its own article, or indeed that it will be possible to find enough material to create an article for each individual song. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the context of the broader album, this is a mere bonus track that's not known for having any particular aspects that really stand out. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bonus track . . . it's a "hidden" one. Or better phrased, an unlisted one. The listener doesn't have to expend any additional energy to hear it--she or he just needs to wait out the silence. This is a mostly well-written, informative, referenced, well-viewed article that has been around since 2005 . . . not sure why it's become such a deletion "priority." And as the Rolling Stone article states, "Thanks to Nevermind, these sort of hidden tracks would remain popular until WinAmp and its descendents revealed track lengths before the listener pressed play." Caro7200 (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sources provided have been debunked Spartaz Humbug! 08:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Couture

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

paid for spam, non-notable brand, the sources i've removed are completely fake black hat seo sites and what's left are contributor pieces and press releases. A search reveals nothing better. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 23:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a contributor piece, this is basically just a mention and not at all coverage, this is almost identical save for a few words to gay star news, which means its probably a press release, but even if not, it's just an announcement and this is just an interview. So 0 coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are press releases combined with interviews and not coverage. As for some of your other sources, if you bother to look critically at them, 3 of them are blatantly fake black hat SEO "news" sites and thus unreliable. Ie. bestinau and dailyscanner are both completely fake sites operated by a black hat firm that promotes fake press for their clients. Sites like Elucid Magazine might not be fake but they're certainly not known for editorial oversight nor do they have the level of readership to establish notability for the same reason a local podunk news outlet doesn't establish notability. And this website which is invested in marketing and promoting clients is definitely not a reliable source to establish notability and it's also operated by the same black hat seo firm(s) the first two I pointed out are. Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that certain ones I was unaware were on the black list aside, I would ask you to remain WP:CIVIL. Even placing those aside, there are enough sources here to demonstrate WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:GNG to suggest that readership numbers, niche magazines or local news can’t contribute towards notability, especially when the subject is covered in multiple sources independently. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about my comments was uncivil? And no, you're incorrect, none of the sources you've provided have coverage and in fact, most of the sources you've provided should be blacklisted as they are intentionally deceptive and run by, again, black hat SEO firms. (Since apparently I need to spell it out, my comments about the sources have nothing to do with you, it's about the source and the firms promoting this brand.) As far as Elucid goes, please tell me what their history is wrt editorial oversight and reliability, or perhaps who the author is of this piece? Was it endorsed by their editorial board? Do they have an editorial board? Praxidicae (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiffbear88, GNG isn't what we're discussing here - we're discussing NCORP. Randomly clicking on three of the 'new sources' you found, I saw one which was actually labelled as an advertisement, a passing mention on someone's blog, and an obvious press release republished without so much as a byline. These sources are miles away from meeting the requirements. GirthSummit (blether) 16:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit and in digging more into my suspicions about Elucid, we should be blacklisting it at this point rather than considering whether it's readership is relevant. It doesn't bode well when the only identified staff on their website, in this case, their editor in chief, is openly soliciting these deceptive practices on fiverr...(i tried to link but fiverr is blacklisted) Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm not au fait with the blacklisting process, but would support any such suggestion. GirthSummit (blether) 16:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK I’ve changed my vote. Praxidicae your tone has not been particularly civil during this exchange and I would ask you to WP:AGF in these discussions. Phrases such as “if you bother to look...”, “Since apparently I need to spell it out...” and “And no, you're incorrect...” demonstrates a needlessly aggressive tone when I’m trying to engage in constructive discussion, and this is not the first time I’ve felt it in your AfD contributions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiffbear88, thanks for being willing to reconsider your position. FWIW, I think Prax could probably have worded a few statements differently in the interests of collegiality. Please recognise though the huge amount of work she does keeping covert spam off our project - that's frustrating work, and frustration sometimes leads to blunt turns of phrase. I'm glad we've all ended up in the same boat. GirthSummit (blether) 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hairil Sufi

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No sourced senior appearances. BlameRuiner (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EC8OR

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
EC8OR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Few sources and no claim to notability JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Post - WYU

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

The article does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. The references includes Facebook pages. Amkgp (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pollards Corner, Virginia

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

Non-notable place. I could not find any reliable sources or significant coverage of Pollards Corner, so it should be deleted. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Already deleted by User:MelanieN per WP:G4 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 17:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Mark

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

The person seems to lack WP:GNG. The references are also seems to be unreliable. Parts of the article are also promotional in nature. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Kordestani

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

more paid for spam about a non notable "entrepreneur", sourced to black hat SEO fake sources and nothing in the way of actual independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehki Raine

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

Reviewed under new article review/curation. Zero sources to indicate wp:notability under wp:GNG. Nothing to indicate passage under the SNG. The one reference is a link to website whose mission is to support "early artist development". Nothing additional found in a web search. Creator is blocked and a brand new account substantially focused on this article has been editing. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Gamboa

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

non notable musician, no coverage to be found. Praxidicae (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kassotis family

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

Recently created page about a Greek family, apparently by an account with an autobiographical COI. Despite superficial appearances, nothing of this is properly sourced - wikilinks go to pages that don't even mention the item in question, book links go to works that mention the general events in question but not the specific people allegedly acting in them. The only potentially legitimate source is a local historian from the 1950s who may have mentioned one family member as playing a role in the local village history of the mid-19th century. All the rest is just unpublished or self-published "family archives". Nothing that would establish clear notability of any one member of the family, let along notability of the family as a whole. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. As the editor who wrote the article I'm actually ok with this and acknowledge all the above points. This was a draft for some time and only moved it here after I became autoconfirmed to gather more feedback from other editors (not much feedback for draft pages out there). I understand it doesn’t fit all the criteria but as a personal favour for the future can I ask exactly where things went wrong with the sources? I know I botched this one but it’s important to understand that it wasn’t intentional and I did this mostly for practice for better future articles on other subjects. This family are actually relatives of mine and it was my first historical project after I tried to complete my own family tree for years. I didn’t embellish anything and all the things I wrote are real but how exactly could I present them better? Is it the language barrier of the sources or the content of the sources themselves? Also what’s an ideal source for the names of the family members if not the registry office of their country of origin? Are there better ways to prove their relation and more importantly their existence? Thanks in advance and sorry for taking up your time with all this. Please don't yell at me, I come in peace. CapJoe2 15:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. dibbydib (T ･ C) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China-Thailand meme war

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

I don't think the subject warrants a stand-alone article. It was a Twitter drama which lasted a couple of days, and was briefly covered by the International news media, but I don't see indication that this single event is likely to generate WP:LASTING effects or be subject to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. At most a few sentences at China–Thailand relations should suffice. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ski Dome

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

Declined PROD. A long-defunct ski area that was only open from 1938 to 1956 and was outshined by its neighbor. Very few citeable documents available online or in local newspaper archives in terms of lasting coverage. SounderBruce 05:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 05:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 05:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 09:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnston (Canadian actor)

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

A non notable actor. Seems to have only done minor roles, with no evidence of substantial secondary sources. Inappropriately sourced just by IMDb for several years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To even consider keeping him we need to actually put the articles as sources on the page. Also, we need to know for sure they all refer to the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, none of those clippings are bolstering the case much; most importantly, as noted by John Pack Lambert, there's no actual verification present that those three clippings are even all referring to the same person — neither "Andrew" nor "Johnston" are rare enough names that we can simply assume that any source that mentions an actor named Andrew Johnston is guaranteed to be referring to this Andrew Johnston, so we would need sources that more clearly establish that they're talking about the same person. Secondly, even if we accepted that they are the same person, NACTOR still isn't just looking for verification that roles were had — we need sources that are strongly enough about him and his performances to verify that the roles were significant in some way, not just sources that mention his name in passing. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share your concerns, John Pack Lambert and Bearcat. The photo in one of the articles does match his photos on IMDb, however, so that's a start, and I refined my searches to Canadian actors as well. Further verification is still strongly preferred, though. I'll stand by my "Weak Keep" vote at the moment, and will wait and see what other editors have to say. I can provide more sources, too, but the same verification issues will likely arise. And, John, if the article were to be kept, I would certainly add the sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Meets the technical requirements of WP:MUSICBIO, not enough support for overriding that fact. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrian (singer)

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

Non-notable, Found very less info of her on the internet. Most of them are from PR Agencies, and She does not pass the notability criteria Tatupiplu'talk 15:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 09:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Forbes (actor)

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

Non notable actor. IMDb inappropriately used as the only source. No evidence of other substantial sources that would indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear you on the frustration of people nominating without checking the actor's name and the titles, especially for non-film credits. I'll be adding references shortly. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 09:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cobbold (1708–1767)

[edit]
Thomas Cobbold (1708–1767) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded. Not seeing what makes him notable (likely fail of WP:NBIO). Sources are very poor - few mentions in passing in family tree, company websites, and such. BEFORE shows very little (don't confuse him with his father Thomas Cobbold (1680–1752) that gets a little bit more coverage and has borderline notability). Bottom line, he doesn't seem to have done anything that meets NBIO, and sources don't discuss his life in more than a passing 2-3 sentences. At best this could be merged to the article about his father, unless anyone can find a better place to retain this content? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: As Thomas senior founded the second oldest independent brewery in England it is hard to see why his notability should be considered borderline. The sort of sources available locally include Frank Woolnough's Souvenir of the bi-centenary of the Cliff Brewery 1723–1923 (1923), which although written nearly a hundred years ago is a good source. As we approach the tri-centenary of the Cobbold brewing business it strikes me that Wikipedia would be falling down in its remit not to have suitable pages on all the notable members of this significant Ipswich family.Leutha (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 09:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GirthSummit (blether) 12:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah J. Halstead

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

Supported entirely with unreliable/primary/non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE did not yield anything better. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ENT. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Kyaa Kool Hain Hum (film series)

[edit]
Kyaa Kool Hain Hum (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - The9Man (Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man (Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of Star Trek films and television series article has numerous WP:RS, where this has hardly any which discusses it in a series way. How about the notability WP:NRV? - The9Man (Talk) 06:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not actually a film series. This is very well explained by usernamekiran above. - The9Man (Talk) 09:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The stories being unrelated and the characters being different does not make it "not a film series" (see the Cornetto trilogy or the Revenge trilogy for example). The three films share the same producers, same stars, same themes, same titling scheme,... It's a film series. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happy Evil Dude: Hi. Your rationale is very well explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cornetto trilogy, and other similar series have received significant coverage in reliable sources. This film series doesnt have significant coverage. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. This series fails general notability criteria. Like I said in my previous comments, there is no continuity, or any other reason to have a separate stand alone article. Everything can be explained in in the articles of individual films. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
from an interview with star Tusshar Kapoor: "It’s the third part of the Kya Kool Hai Hum trilogy, the first adult comedy franchise in India, and it’s an exciting film for me because it’s been projected as India’s first p-rn com". From an interview with 3rd film star Aftab Shivdasani: "The film is the third film in the franchise, and it’s got nothing to do with the story of the first and second film.". The films have been discussed as a trilogy by reputable, reliable outlets such as Mint, The Express Tribune and FirstPost. Coverage in India has been significant. Enough. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Happy Evil Dude: interviews, and press releases are not considered as significant coverage. Most of the, almost all of the coverage that I could find is about the individual movies with passing reference to the series. Again: verifiable existence is not notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you're splitting hairs and you know it. I've said what I have to say. That is all. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Campus placement

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 01:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 09:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akan (musician)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article discuss him. I was able to find two reviews about his second studio album. The first review was published by Ghana Web, a platform that writes opinion pieces. The second review (a good read) was written by an amateur reviewer for a wordpress blog. I also found this source published by More Braches; unfortunately, it cannot be used to establish notability since it isn't independent of the subject. The subject has not gained in-depth coverage and does not deserve a separate article at this time.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Support Deletion - This article has about 6 or 7 independent sources speaking to it which is the English Wikipedia standard for article creation. Even with that I recognized the article still needed work so I made it a stub so it could be updated as we move forward. This article meets the required standard of Article creation and I believe I did that when I was writing it a year ago. I am completely at a loss where you point that none of the reference articles attached to this article speaks about him can you be kind to point that out. I believe the subject deserves a Wikipedia article because it meets the basic notability criteria and it was marked a Stub for that same purpose. Owula kpakpo (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owula kpakpo: To reiterate, the sources in the article do not discuss the subject. I am going to dissect all 10 of them below.
  • The first source briefly mentions his song "Helebaba" and does not discuss him; the source cannot be used to establish the song's notability.
  • The second source is an announcement about his debut album Onipa Akoma. The album fails WP:NALBUM so the source cannot be used to establish notability.
  • The third source is simply an opinionated list compiled by Pulse Ghana; Akan is only mentioned in the source and is not discussed.
  • The fourth source is actually the kind of source that is needed to justify Onipa Akoma's notability. However, I don't think one solid review and background info is enough for the album to pass WP:NALBUM. It's a shame because the album is arguably one of the best Ghanaian albums released in 2017. If it won or was nominated for a VGMA award, then it should pass WP:NALBUM. I actually like the review I linked above; unfortunately, it can't be used.
  • The fifth source is just a promotional link about "Me Sika Duro"; the song is not discussed in the source.
  • The sixth source is a press release about the song "Ma Jaacki"; the song is not discussed in the source.
  • The seventh source is just the track list for Onipa Akoma; track listings do not establish an album's notability.
  • The eighth source is a press release about his cover of Skepta's "Konnichiwa"; the song is not discussed in the source.
  • The ninth source is a press release about the "Helebaba" video.
  • The tenth source, although not published as a review, can actually be considered a review of Akan's "Me Sika Aduro" video. If the song itself was notable, this review would complement it. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
The subject does not deserve a separate article at this time. He hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. My dissection of the article's sources is a testament to this fact.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi  Versace1608 , I am currently at a loss why you think the sources I have sited doesn't discuss the subject when they mention the subject in their reportage. Some of the sources are linked to the music which when you look carefully is linked to only his discography and to a specific music on the discography. Like I said above there are more sources I am finding about the subject which I have already added to the article. Also this article passes off as a stub so it meets the basic criteria for article creation if that has changed kindly point that out to me. And if you read the article and the sources attached you would notice the difference between each source I used and what it's backing in the article.Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owula kpakpo: Being mentioned in a source isn't the same as being discussed. All of the sources mentioned the subject's name but none of them discussed him. The additional sources you added to the article do not disuss Akan. The Quartz source only mentions his name once; a large portion of the article is about ELi and his environmental practices. The second source is a good review about the "Aprodoo" music video; the entire article is about the video and not about Akan. The source itself is a blog that doesn't appear to be notable (the blog only has two contributors). A separate Wikipedia article cannot be written about the blog because the blog fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. An article being a stub is irrelevant to our discussion. Just because an article is a stub doesn't make it exempt from being judge against WP:N. FYI, in order for a subject to have a separate article, they will need to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Akan doesn't meet our notability requirements at this time. If he wins or gets nominated for a major award like the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards, he should have enough to pass the notability threshold.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi  Versace1608 , I disagree that to be a notable musician from Ghana you have to win a Vodafone Ghana Music Awards because not every musician gets nominated in that award scheme. It's like saying in other to be notable musician in the US you have to win or have been nominated for a Grammy Award, Billboard & BET Awards those are not what the notability criteria states. Akan is a musician and his video is being reviewed how that fails to be a review about his music beats my imagination. There are so many notable Ghanaian musicians who would not be nominated by any award scheme but would be notable I can give you examples. I have been contributing to articles around musicians in Ghana for a while and I am sorry a lot of nuanced would be lost on you if you are not from here.Owula kpakpo (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owula kpakpo: I am not saying he needs to win a VGMA in order to be notable. I said if he wins or gets nominated for a VGMA, he would pass criterion 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. As things currently stand, Akan doesn't meet any crtierion of WP:MUSICBIO.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 09:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep, notable artist who is well known across Africa. I feel like this article can be improved with more sources but there is definitely enough info on the internet to make it pass WP:musicbio Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 14:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apollo825: How is he well-known across Africa? Can you provide a reliable source to support your statement? Which criterion of WP:MUSICBIO does he meet? You can't say he meets MUSICBIO without backing up your statement. I am awaiting your response.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::: Did a bit of digging around but if these could be added to the article I'm sure people will acknowledge his notability. Al Jazeera mentions him, online info, ghana motion releases, Live FM Ghana, Harmattan Rain, unorthodox reviews, musicarenagh. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 14:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apollo825: You still didn't answer my question. How is he well-known across Africa? You need to back this statement up with reliable sources or remove it from this AFD discussion. Passing mentions by Al Jazeera is not enough to warrant a separate article. Music in Africa is not a reliable source; the website reads: "Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes". Ghanamotion is a blog that promotes artists through advertising; it is no where near being a reliable souurce. The Live FM Ghana source is simply a press release about the subject's album; it is not even a critical review of the album. Harmattan Rain is an unrelaible blog source that accepts content from artists. Unorthodox Reviews is a blog that lacks an editorial team. The last source is a promotional link; there's absolutely noting notable about it. You need to do some more digging because nothing you've presented here confer notability.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McFedries

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

Currently, the article is supported only by an Amazon profile, and a profile on an affiliated website. He seems to be a fairly prolific author of technical books (Idiot's Guide to Windows 98, Windows 7 Unleashed, that sort of thing), but I wasn't able to find any of his books reviewed anywhere in non-UGC sources that might point towards an NAUTHOR pass, and I could find no coverage of the man himself in any significant depth in any reliable, independent sources which might point towards a GNG pass. GirthSummit (blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabiru Gombe

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

Subject of article is a non notable secetary general to a notable person who founded an Islamic religious movement. Per WP:NOTINHERITED we know this doesn’t do anything to prove subject’s notability. The only two reliable sources used in the article are BBC Hausa, but having optimized Google Translator I discovered they were merely mentioning him in passing(anyone can confirm this using that wonderful tool) Furthermore Subject of article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG & WP:BASIC. He does not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1- https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-42130508
Headlines: "Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi is calling my name in the sermon - Kabiru Gombe"
Contents: "The Secretary General of the Jama'atu Izalatul Bid'ah Wa Iqamatus Sunnah (JIBWIS), Sheikh Kabiru Gombe, denied that he used to mention Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi in his sermon. Sheikh Kabiru Gombe made this clear during a visit to the BBC in London last week, saying that he has never mentioned the name of Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi in his sermon.The clergyman said, "If anyone has a tapes of his preaching mentioning the name of the teacher, then the door will open for him to spread to the world."------- How is this a pass by? when he is the one narrating and addressing what happened between him and other Islamic cleric.
2- https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-42130507 This references is an interview of Him with BBC
Headline: "Women are more important than men - Sheikh Kabiru Gombe" This translation is not even accurate, it soppose to be translated this way "Women needs sermon/ preaching more than men"
Content: "The general secretary of the Jama'atu Izalatul Bid'ah Wa Iqamatus Sunnah (JIBWIS), Sheikh Kabiru Haruna Gombe, told the BBC why he often preached against women, The cleric made the remarks during a visit to the BBC in London on Thursday, He said he has experienced that mothers have been left behind and that the focus on women's preaching has not been fully addressed, he said, "Even if the women are preaching, it is usually better to be hung up on fire or by the teachers, than to be taught about the teachings of Islam and how to worship the Lord God," he said "--------Under this reference when taken to the BBC site, a Video of the interview is even placed to watch online, So how can you then say it is merely passing, when it is even an interview between him and BBC Hausa broadcasting, please be serious.
3- here is another independent reliable source reference not included in the main article https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-42338468 On this they placed an audio of Kabiru Gombe preaching about the importance of using musk perfume in pubic parts for woman, it is an audio, but thank God his name is in the Headline and his picture is there to see, in such away that you wont make false claim by saying is a pass by mention.
4- https://aminiya.dailytrust.com.ng/ba-dabiar-malaman-sunnah-ba-ne-su-ce-wane-yana-wuta-sheikh-kabiru-gombe/ Also you did not mention Daily Trust a Nigerian English broadcasting, and it is there in the artilcle, Dailytrust is the English one while Aminiya Dailytrust is the Hausa version using the same trademark logo broadcasting in Hausa language, and it is independent reliable source with no dought, you mean you did not know about this reference in the article or you did not click on the reference?
What about this Legit.ng an independent reliable source https://hausa.legit.ng/1122999-makwabcin-sheikh-kabiru-gombe-ya-kai-kararsa-gaban-kotu-kan-zarginsa-da-aika.html and this https://dabofm.com/ana-saka-ran-dawowar-sheikh-kabiru-gombe-da-bala-lau-gobe-talata-daga-amurka/ Dabo FM, it is an online radio station website for broadcating online, the Radio station is based in Jaipur North of India. And I want those that will vote Keep or Delete to check Find sources Books and Scholar, there are sources there.

Conclusion Per those Six Independent reliable sources, 3 from BBC Hausa, 1 from Daily Trust, Legit and Dabo FM, it pass WP:GNG. An@ss_koko(speak up)©T® 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko, how do any of those sources satisfy “in-depth significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of them” where & where in those sources was he himself discussed with in-depth? Literally every source discusses him in passing or states an action he performed but none discuss him significantly. See WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply User:Celestina007 You are asking a confusable complicated question which is roughly congested with meaning words leading it to meaninglessness, simplify the question to be straight forward, and went directly to the point, from the Q, you made mention of reliable, independent and source, which of these references lack this quality? point it let me see? is it BBC Hausa, Daily Trust, Legit.ng or Dabo F.M, make clarification, and explain in details as I do in the first place, remember! no lying.

Further references: Let me make it clear by adding additional references from books and scholars:
Scholars: http://www.ethnographiques.org/2011/Sounaye and https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/23853/ASC-075287668-3441-01.pdf?sequence=1#page=223
Book 1:Boko Haram:The History of an African Jihadist Movement by Alexander Thurston, Priceton Univ., ISBN 978-0-691-17224-8, Page 232
Book 2:Salafism in Nigeria:Islam, preaching, and politics, by Alexander Thurston, Cambridge University Press, 22 sep 2016. ISBN 978-1-107-15743-9, Page 103. Thank You.----- An@ss_koko(speak up)©T® 20:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @Anasskoko, I’d ignore the fact that you implied that i say meaningless things & I’m a liar & go straight to the point.
In my reason for taking this to an AFD, you’d see that I concured to the fact that he has two reliable sources mentioning him but merely in passing, I verified this by using the Google Translator if you’ve ever studied WP:GNG you’d notice it says “in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject” emphasis on the “in-depth significant coverage” having two or three reliable sources merely mentioning you in passing & not discussing the subject significantly or with in-depth does nothing for WP:GNG. So let’s see it
  • Reliable source checkY
  • independent of them checkY
  • in-depth significant coverage Red XN
  • Overall value & adherence to WP:GNG = Red XN
So you see, per WP:GNG the subject of your article isn’t notable. Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DonCamillo, please you are more than welcome to provide us with this “hundreds of media articles” that are reliable sources that discuss subject of our discussion with significant in-depth coverage I beg of you please do so! you are more than welcome to do so! Wikipedia biographical articles generally are about what can be verified via reliable sources with in-depth significant coverage independent of the subject. If all this boxes don’t tickRed XN then your analysis of what is or what isn’t is very flawed. Anyways you might want to see WP:GNG. Oh lest I forget; It’s great how sleeper accounts pop up every now & again to make statements & !votes in AFD’s & go back to slumber again. I mean what are the odds? Your last edit was on the 19th of December 2019 & your next would “coincidentally” be on the 23rd of April 2020, straight to this AFD to vote. Finally per your comments above It would be good if some people could avoid giving their opinion about something they have clearly no idea about I really don’t need to know jack shit about Christianity, Hinduism, or in this case, the Islamic religion or clerics, what I do need to know & which I already know, is Wikipedia’s policies in establishing notability & how to access the innumerable tools I have been given to by this collaborative community to work with. All else is irrelevant as only the integrity of the encyclopedia is what is pertinent. Feel free to stop by when you have those hypothetical “hundreds of media articles” Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations are really... interesting. I happen to do quite a lot of work on the Hausa Wikipedia and noticed that the article was recently created there: I just clicked on the interwiki link and saw the AfD notice. So nothing strange there. Is that satisfactory? English is my 3rd language so, no, I do not primarily contribute on the English Wikipedia.
Yes, hundreds of articles are available about the topic of this article, and over a quite long period of time. Look for yourself (BBC, RFI, Aminiya...). Most of them happen to be in Hausa. Basically, to summarize, Kabiru Gombe is the "number 2" or maybe number 3 of one of the largest Islamic movements in Nigeria, with millions of followers. He is regularly interviewed by different international and Nigerian media to give his opinion on various matters. He is mentioned in the scientific literature about Nigerian Salafism (books by Alexander Thurston and Roman Loimeier whose authority on the topic is, I'm afraid, stronger that yours) as a prominent cleric within the so-called Salafi Muslim community in Nigeria. So, yes, strong keep', again.
As a non-Nigerian interested in Nigerian-related topics, may I add that I am truly shocked and disappointed by the way Nigerian-related topics are treated here... --DonCamillo (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DonCamillo, Just as I thought all talk & you still didn’t bring the Hundreds of reliable media you claim are out there. Do you know why you couldn’t bring them here? Because they are simply non-existent. I don’t give a damn that you are from the Hausa tribe interested in Nigerian related topics. Sentiments be damned! Who cares??? If you can’t provide us with the Hundreds of reliable media you claim exist that substantiates or proves subject’s notability then please move aside for experienced editors who actually know what they are doing to weigh in & quit consistutung a nuisance here using sentiments to draw pity to your cause. Furthermore from your statement above “As a non-Nigerian interested in Nigerian-related topics, may I add that I am truly shocked and disappointed by the way Nigerian-related topics are treated here” I’d like to say that I am a Nigerian citizen & have lived in Nigeria & with Nigerians for 20+ years, so I am as Nigerian as they come & you can’t love articles related to my country more than I do. If your next response isn’t with those magical Hundreds of reliable media you claim you discovered I’d most likely not respond to you again as obviously you clearly do not know what Wikipedia is about, Good fucking Bye! Oh lest I forget this comment above Look for yourself (BBC, RFI, Aminiya...). Most of them happen to be in Hausa I’m not going to assist you look for crap. That’s the burden of the article creator & oh well yours now since you want to play Devil’s advocate. Subject of article lacks in-depth coverage which makes him ineligible to qualify under GNG how hard is that to grasp? Celestina007 (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DonCamillo, I disagree with your statement about being disappointed by the way Nigerian-related topics are treated. FYI, the number of Nigerian-related articles on Wikipedia far outweigh the ones that have been deleted. Like i said earlier, the subject's only claim to notability is his secretarial role at the Izala Society. The sources cited in the article and the ones available online do not show him having in-depth coverage. Passing mentions in books are not enough to warrant a separate article. @Celestina007: Please bring your tone down; its not that serious. Let's try to discuss this in a civil manner.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, easy. I am not accusing you of anything. I'm very glad you're Nigerian. I'm not, and not part of any tribe whatsoever. Just saying that I'm quite surprised to see people (not necessarily you, you're not the only one speaking here) discarding very easily the no. 2 or 3 of one of the major Muslim movements in Nigeria whereas minor religious leaders from a lot of countries have articles here and no one is trying to delete them...
Regarding the sources, again, look for yourself. I'm sure you can use Google. You have twenty of them on BBC Hausa only (you can use site:bbc.com to do a search within a specific website). I gave you a summary of what these articles show. The article is already supported by a lot of sources, I added two of them myself. Just read them instead of ranting. Thanks, --DonCamillo (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DonCamillo: What exactly do you mean by number 2 or 3? Do you have reliable sources to support this info? He holds a secretarial position. How exactly is this position a top tier position in a religious organization? Please elaborate.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608: He's not a secretary, he's the "Secretary-General" (babban sakatare in Hausa - there is a source in English in the article now). I don't know the Izala structure that deep but from the media reports it seems that he is the number 2, coming after the "President" (shugaba in Hausa), who is Abdullahi Bala Lau (and probably deserves an article too!). They are regularly interviewed together as the most prominent leaders of JIBWIS also known as Izala. --DonCamillo (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DonCamillo: You should focus on creating an article about the the president, not about the second or third person in command. Just because he is the "Secretary-General" doesn't mean he automatically deserves an article. Like I said earlier, he lacks in-depth coverage and is only known for this role. He literally hasn't done anything outside of this. I can even argue that he is trying to inherit notability from the organization. As you know, notability cannot be inherited here.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608: But... who are you to tell me which article I should focus on? Sorry, I don't understand. No one has ever talked to me like that on a Wikimedia project, is it normal on the English Wikipedia? Is there a Wikipedia police that tells people which topic they have to work on? Very weird. And I never said he deserved an article because he is the Secretary-General, he deserves it because of his position in a movement with millions of followers in Nigeria and of the in-depth coverage he gets in Nigeria. The article shows it very clearly, now that it has been improved by at least four different editors. Kindly have a look at it, instead of trying to police what other editors are working on. Thanks. --DonCamillo (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DonCamillo: I am not trying to police you or anyone for that matter. My apologies if you took offense to my comments. You suggested that the president of the organization deserves a separate article and my comments were a response to that. Thanks for improving the article but the subject still has not been discussed in-depth. The position I hold in this AFD will change once I see in-depth coverage. This AFD discussion will probably end up closing as no consensus, which wold result in the article remaining in mainspace.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
M-Mustapha, Your comment above which reads “please do not accuse or question me of why? just because I voted contrary to your view” is very much strange to say the least as this is your first !vote here so far & no one has ever accused you, questioned you, or badgered you in any way whatsoever. Perharps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to. Also, Per your comments above which reads “Per WP:GNG and the bunch of sources provided in the article all are reliable” which is similar to DonCamillo’s rationale you both have failed or rather, have refused to provide in this AFD the links to the reliable sources that proves the subject of the article has possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The reason is simple, there is none of such in existence. You may choose to prove me wrong by providing us with such sources. Furthermore In Wikipedia’s AFD procedures we don’t just !vote a keep or a delete without providing congent rationales. Oh! I actually just remembered you explicitly said “Do not question me of why” & “do not expect me to respond to anybody's question of why?” that’s pretty convenient if you ask me. Fine by me, but just so you know your point is very much invalid.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Celestina007, Let's start; I am now being accused! for running several accounts; "Perhaps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to" being question of why! just because I voted contrary to your view. “as this is your first !vote” why I voted that, and maybe being badgered! "you both have failed" "your point is very much invalid".
Let's start; This is not my first AFD opinion and I do not run several accounts but I renamed it almost thrice all with reasons. I'm just an Uninvolved Editor and I only come here to vote when I see an encyclopedic quality is wanted for deletion so I come to rescue. I see some people are trying to points out who is Nigerian and who is not, May be we all have something to say on this, google search, bing search and any other internet search engine is enough for me, google it or bing it, you would find them (thousands of Audio and video files).-Em-mustapha User | talk 11:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
M-Mustapha, only you accused your own self of sockpuppetry as I never said that explicitly. Although your multiple grammatical errors & less than satisfactory command of the English language does remind of a certain Nigerian editor on this collaborative project from Nothern Nigeria. you claim through a google search you encountered thousands of sources & DonCamillo, claims he saw hundreds, but to post just one of those hundreds or thousands that show subject of article possessing in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them becomes a mission impossible for you both. The problem is those hundreds or thousands of sources are non existent! you both are in a catch-22 scenario.
How do you mean you may ask? I’d tell you; you both admire the subject of the article (perhaps because he is a religious figure you consider pertinent to your religion), you both assumed that he was notable without doing a proper research.you both !voted keeps assuming “surely he must be notable” you both have now undoubtedly done a google check & clearly have seen he doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG but of course your ego & admiration for him may have impaired your judgement and would make you not !vote appropriately or strike out your previous !votes to !vote correctly now you know he doesn’t satisfy GNG. But no, you’d rather resort to making bizzare claims saying he has hundreds and thousands of media sources to show he possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them instead of own up to the fact that you have !voted wrongly as those hundreds or thousands of reliable sources is nothing but a blatant lie. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Come one, this is not serious, you're very agressive. The article has many sources now and the articles I mentioned are still online. There are rules on Wikipedia, you cannot accuse other editors like this at random without any proof. I can't see how it is suspicious that two editors who are very active on the Hausa Wikipedia give their opinion about an article when sources are mostly in Hausa. Seems very normal to me. So kindly leave people alone, read the sources that have been provided over the last days and hopefully... change your opinion? Thank you. --DonCamillo (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@F5pillar: How did you derive 55% and which criteria of WP:BIO do you think he satisfies?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GNG. I repeate, according to the sources in the page. I read all the sources in the page and seems all require was there only his birth year and little about his education wasn't discuss. (F5pillar---Let's talk🖋📩) 16:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@F5pillar: You did not answer my question. I asked how did you derive at that number and your response is WP:GNG? For your info, WP:GNG is not the same as WP:BIO.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: WP:BLUDGEON is an essay and not a guideline. There's absolutely nothing wrong with responding to others in an AFD discussion; I have not been uncivil in any of my responses.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anasskoko: How do you know others are afraid of voting keep and who are these "others"? For your info, there's no policy that prohibits me from responding to statements that I do not agree with. I'm entitled to respond to your comments and so are you. There's absolutely nothing wrong with engaging with others. At the end of the day, this is an AFD discussion and we are here to talk until consensus is reached. For your info, articles are deleted based on consensus and not on the number of delete votes.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON: "When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of abuse. This can be considered an act of bad faith as the purpose is to win at any cost." — Toughpigs (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: I am not trying to win at any cost or trying to intimidate anyone. If you check my AFD stats, you'll clearly see that I've voted delete in articles that have been kept. I don't have the mindset that every AFD discssion will go my way. If that was the case, I'd be nominating articles two or three times after they've been closed as keep or no consensus.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Toughpigs, just like Versace1608 already said no one is trying to win anything here & neither do I badger others nor bludgeon. If you look throughout this AFD I’ve only requested that one, just only one of those “hundreds or thousands” of reliable sources they claim are out there be made available here on this AFD & so far no one has done so. Like I said in the end nothing but the integrity of the encyclopedia matters if the community decides that this article be kept then so be it. I literally have served the community quite well & the universe has aided me in my journey so far & all things being equal I will continue to serve the community. Only the integrity of the encyclopedia is what is imperative every other thing is secondary. Someday I’d retire & so would you but the project lives on & posterity would continue from where we stopped. you probably are right, by the grace of God this should be my last entry in this particular AFD for now because I think I have made a fair point + I just cracked my glasses & wouldn’t be getting a new one till tomorrow + astigmatism is a bitch. haha! Celestina007 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 07:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Dead Aeroplanes

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missbarbell, sorry, didn't notice that you had just created these, should have paid more attention. My opinion is that they should not have been nominated so quickly. Caro7200 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this source here shows it meets criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM.  Apollo825  - talk to me baby - 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. BLP1E arguments appear valid Spartaz Humbug! 08:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzo Harami

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited are song lists, video links, promos and trivial mention. No awards or charted songs. Some reliable secondary sources discussed how one of this musician's songs was banned on BBC, but notability is not established by one event. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a charted song. Was due to add this to the page but it slipped my mind. As the creator of the article I do believe at the time I created the article WP:TOOSOON, however since then a lot has been added to the article to just about meet WP:MUSICBIO, the charting single, although recent, was a collaborative single.TwinTurbo (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TwinTurbo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Frenzo Harami released the single "Sarangi" on 8 December 2019 alongside Ickey Singh and Raashi Sood. The single was produced by Swifty Beats and peaked at number 35 on the OCC Asian Music Chart where it remained for a week.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/asian-download-chart/20191213/asian/
  2. ^ https://britasia.tv/the-official-punjabi-music-chart-47-holds-onto-the-number-1-spot-for-another-week/
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBhXdvJV4dI
Comment: it's pretty weak though... one low-charting single on a specialist chart, and a storm in a teacup BLP1EVENT that never got any mention again after one day. Richard3120 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He is actually just a featured artist on that single, and not the main artist though, isn't he? Richard3120 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is listed without the mention of half the artists on the official charts company website, it Is a collaborative single - uploaded on Frenzo's YT channel, the single on Deezer. Frenzo is an international artist, he is recognised amongst the South Asian community in countries including Pakistan, India and Bangladesh as well as the UK. TwinTurbo (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC
I know he is on the song, but there is a difference between a "collaborative artist" who gets equal billing, and a "featured artist" who is a guest on the single... Deezer, Apple Music [66] and Amazon [67] all credit the single to Ickey Singh, and Harami is just one of the guests on the song. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, so you've just joined Wikipedia, literally your first edit was this "keep" vote, you then created a user page in which you list editors who supposedly can help stop deletion votes, presumably without getting their permission to list their names or even notifying them that you've done so, and then you spam their talk pages to try and get them to vote here, in contravention of WP:CANVAS? I smell a rat. Richard3120 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to ABF. Not knowing about WP:CANVAS or our editing norms is consitent with being a genuine newbie. That said, you're right that Apollo is at risk of getting banned unless they stop canvasing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I am going to assume bad faith if someone joins Wikipedia specifically to vote keep in an AfD, and then lists editors' names on their user page without their permission. Richard3120 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Woah aren't you quick to jump to conclusions: I just happen to not remember my old account passwords User:Apollo828 and User:Johnny338. Anyways, I was hoping for a much warmer welcome back to Wikipedia, feels good to be back but anyways I was not aware of canvassing and I do apologise for that. Mr. Apollo (don't talk to me) 13:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120: User:TwinTurbo--the creator of Frenzo Harami--made this edit at User:Dream Focus talk page admiring Dream Focus' skill at not getting articles deleted. It was TwinTurbo's first edit to Dream Focus' talk page. Then 12 hours later, User:Apollo825 opened an account and made this edit to Dream Focus' talk page, where Dream Focus was specifically asked to participate in this AfD discussion. Why did Apollo825 just "randomly" leave a message at Dream Focus' talk page right after TwinTurbo? Apollo825 stated that their old account with a lost password was User:Johnny338, but that user had never edited Dream Focus' talk page. Something isn't right here. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to imply? I left my message in good nature regarding another afd on Dream Focus's page. Both of Apollo's old accounts seem to be inactive for over five years and the same way you both are weaving around adds, isn't Apollo doing the same thing? TwinTurbo (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is this an "obvious pass"? The sources that are reliable ones literally give you no biographical or musical details about the artist at all, simply that one of his songs was banned one day by the BBC. That isn't a pass of WP:GNG at all. Richard3120 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GRM Daily amd Mixtape Madness are reliable secondary sources too. Mr. Apollo (don't talk to me) 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mixtape Madness is a blog and not an RS. GRM Daily would be okay, but the two sources are simply links to videos, they provide no in-depth information about the artist at all. Richard3120 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mixtape Madness is not a blog. I guess what you meant was that it's piece on Harami was in it's blog section. This can still be RS, please see WP:NEWSBLOG. Anyway, no need to get bogged down on the mmt source. He's had coverage in several other independent RS as even you seem to admit. WP:GNG says nothing about needing to give "biographical or musical details". To confer notability, they just need to give "significant coverage". Which they do. Oversall, the article has suffient biographical & musical detail to be useful for our readers,IMO. @ Apollo - welcome back! I did think about giving you a welcome and a tip towards wp:canvass, but the "don't talk to me" in your sig made me think twice, might be something to change if you decide to stick around. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it still isn't an RS, WP:NEWSBLOG or not – it's simply a link to a video on a website that describes itself as a "music discovery platform", where artists can upload their own music and it distributes news from other websites. Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mixtape Madness is a music outlet for british hip hop artist, they call their press releases "a blog". Either way there is significant coverage on his music releases apart from the BBC ban. and @FeydHuxtable, I have change my sig to make it more welcoming. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please show us where this "significant coverage" is? Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: I know he did, but that's a WP:BLP1E, there's literally no other significant coverage apart from that event. Richard3120 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything else when I checked. Then after searching for a few minutes I started thinking about the canvassing thing so decided not to participate. Dream Focus 14:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meat Puppets is my fav rock band! :) Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 01:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do agree that this article is borderline notable, but if it must be deleted can I request it be moved to draft space under WP:TOOSOON & WP:WOOD TwinTurbo (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article could be potentially draftified as the rapper is borderline notable, but may need more media coverage or accomplishments before having enough material to be in the mainspace.--WuTang94 (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per Dream Focus, I will not vote as I was personally contacted by one of the now-blocked accounts to participate in this discussion.--WuTang94 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to comment on the SPI, but if Twin Turbo is now indeffed, that does make draftifying a less likely option, as he will now not be able to work on it. Richard3120 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fine with that actually. After re-reading the page, it looks like this page is mostly fluff at this point and does not need to be on Wikipedia. In the event that Frenzo becomes notable enough for his own page in the future, I think that it can be completely rewritten.--WuTang94 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique Monet

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

I PROD'd this in January, which was removed by potential COI editor without explanation, but that is within the rules of PROD. But I believe the reasoning I put up for the PROD remains valid. The subject fails WP:NCREATIVE, was created by an account with the same name as the subject, and has been a magnet for COI edits. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tuskegee Airmen, Inc chapters

[edit]
List of Tuskegee Airmen, Inc chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of chapters for an organization that doesn't have a main article. Its been around a while, but has basically no sourcing about the organization, just about the Tuskegee airmen themselves. There is a draft of the article at Draft:Tuskegee Airmen, Incorporated, which the draftee had merged into this article; I subsequently removed a fair deal of it. The draft article has the same problem this article does: lots of coverage of the Airmen themselves during WWII, and not of the modern-day organization. I could not find significant news coverage of the organization, thus it appears to fail WP:NORG. No notability for a standalone, I think that the whole article could simply be summed up with one sentence in Tuskegee Airmen to the effect of "The modern-day Tuskegee Airmen Inc. is a non-profit that purports to carry on the legacy of the Airmen". CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Graywalls (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial Reconnaissance Unit

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

WP:NOTAWEBHOST This basically looks like a verbatim copy & paste of a public domain document hosted at that seems to serve no purpose other than "hosting it" on Wikipedia and I don't think it serves any purpose. https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/VN%20Advisors%20Boards_Marine%20Advisors.pdf

Graywalls (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cup of Solid Gold. (non-admin closure) buidhe 06:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National anthem of the Qing Dynasty

[edit]
National anthem of the Qing Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All content of this article is covered in the article Cup of Solid Gold. There is no need for a separate page. Mopswade (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That probably makes this AfD moot because the article has been transformed into something else. We voted on one particular song but now the article is about the history of several different national anthems. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, only the last song was an official national anthem. However this article could still be of use describing the history and epidemiology of (semi)official national anthems. Mopswade (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, considering the revamped page discusses four songs instead of one, I suppose it has a chance of standing as an article. I'd say the article needs quite a lot of cleanup and a page move. I stand neutral for now. Mopswade (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irizar i4

[edit]
Irizar i4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded by creator with no edit summary. PRO was "No evidence this vehicle is more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irizar i3. BEFORE does not show any reliable in-depth reviews etc." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 08:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious violence in Odisha

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

Fails WP:NOPAGE as India has 28 states and Odisha is the only state that has article about "Religious violence in..."

While the article documented some of the notable incidents involving Kandhamal region, almost all of them have their own articles now: 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal, 2008 Kandhamal violence, 2008 Kandhamal nun gang rape case, Graham Staines and Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda. That is why there is no need to continue having this article. Srijanx22 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not, per WP:NOPAGE. The article was created 13 years ago, and now all of the subjects of this articles have their own articles. Now when enough details have been already covered elsewhere then we don't need to preserve any other article covering exactly same details. Going by your logic, we will need to create a Religious violence in Eastern India, but WP:NOPAGE discourages this. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree in full, the existence of sibling articles is not merit enough for deletion, especially when, in the nominator's own words, there are other topics in this article that do not have articles of their own.ClaudeDavid (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kanungo, Pralay (2003). "Hindutva's Entry into a 'Hindu Province': Early Years of RSS in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 38 (31): 3293–3303. ISSN 0012-9976.
  2. ^ Wankhede, Harish S. (2009). "The Political Context of Religious Conversion in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (15): 33–38. ISSN 0012-9976.
  3. ^ "Communal Violence in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 43 (1): 6–6. 2008. ISSN 0012-9976.
  4. ^ Kanungo, Pralay (2008). "Hindutva's Fury against Christians in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 43 (37): 16–19. ISSN 0012-9976.
  5. ^ Ponniah, James (2017). "COMMUNAL VIOLENCE IN INDIA: EXPLORING STRATEGIES OF ITS NURTURE AND NEGATION IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES". Journal of Religion and Violence. 5 (1): 79–102. doi:10.2307/26671525. ISSN 2159-6808.
  6. ^ Mosse, David (2012). The Saint in the Banyan Tree: Christianity and Caste Society in India (1 ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-27349-8.
Passes GNG. --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are finding sources for Odisha#Religion and 2008 Kandhamal violence. Both of which already exists. Now see WP:NOPAGE: when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Shopteese

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

I see no evidence of notability . It could probably be realistically claimed hat the first Native American to sit on a state court is notable , but I do not see how that extends to " first Native American to sit on the Massachusetts District Court", Nor are judges of such courts generally notable -- they'e trial courts, not appellate courts, much less state supreme courts--I would be prepared to say anyone who has been a judge of a state's highest court can be assumed to be notable.

Nor is there anything here to show special notability: 3 mere listings, and one very local paper, the Patch edition for Jamaica Plain, MA, included under the heading of "Neighbor News", with the caption "This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own" with the by-line, "Andrew McFarland, A Neighbor"-- in other words they printed it, but it had no editorial control of any sort--the definition of an unreliable source DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

26 Summer Street

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 06:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar Haselberger

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

There are no independent sources in the article on the subject, and from looking his name up he does not seem to meet the criteria for WP:GNG. Zoozaz1 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau Junction, Missouri

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

As confirmed by the source, this is and has always been a railroad junction. Does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is no consensus about what, if anything, would be merged. A redirect could be created though there is no consensus here for that (or against it). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Pulley Junction, Illinois

[edit]
Loose Pulley Junction, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign of a settlement here; maps show a railroad crossing. The one newspaper article that I could find mentions a "Mayor of Loose Pulley Junction" from the 1970s, but this isn't sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Andrew Davidson below. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really any content that could be merged, though. The anecdote about the name was sourced entirely to forums. –dlthewave ☎ 12:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The newspaper coverage and official map data substantiates the account and I expect that further digging will turn up more. There's no reason to delete and our policies and guidelines indicate that we shouldn't. Wikipedia's functions include its role as a gazetteer and so we should retain such details of placenames. The nominator is now reverting the valid details to the erroneous version which misrepresents the place as a community. It seems best to let readers see for themselves, so I repeat them here.

    Loose Pulley Junction is a railroad crossing on the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad (MILW) main line near Rock River in Stillman Valley, Ogle County, Illinois, US.

    From about 1910 to about 1970, there was a well-respected railroad engineer in the area, named Louie "Loose Pulley" Johnson. He lived in a wooded area along the east bank of Rock River, north of the MILW tracks. Around 1941, as a sign of respect, some fellow engineers painted a standard station sign "LOOSE PULLEY JUNCTION" and hung it along the tracks at about 42°7′34″N 89°13′26″W / 42.12611°N 89.22389°W / 42.12611; -89.22389. Engineers were known to routinely give a whistle salute as they passed the sign.

    Perhaps submitted by those who made the signage, or maybe a cartographic surveyor, the location became marked on the USGS maps as of, at latest, 1971 and remains there today. It is also in the USGS GNIS database. The place can even be searched and found on Google maps, Bing Maps, and OpenStreetMap.

My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable sources support this narrative? It was sourced to two forum posts, and the newspaper blurb doesn't mention any of it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bormister, California

[edit]
Bormister, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Christensen, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Derner, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kauffman, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
McGarva, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ramsey, Modoc County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vestil, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Williams, Modoc County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable individual ranches in Modoc County, California. I was unable to find any evidence of these being anything more than ranches whose owners' names were put on a map at some point and therefore got entered into the GNIS database. CJK09 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pentland, California

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

Former junction on the Sunset Railroad where a spur led to Hazelton and Maricopa. No sign that there was ever a community here. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While WP:NACTOR might be met, consensus is pretty clear that WP:GNG is not. Yunshui 雲水 08:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hammond

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

A throughough unremarkable career. Some of the films he appeared in it is open to question why we even have articles on them, others we don't have articles on. The only source is IMDb which is not reliable and not supposed to be used on Wikipedia. I search for sources turned up a college football player of the same name but no additional sources for this person John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 12
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 https://filmgator.com/actor/josh-hammond Very brief personal biography facts, no secondary source content. Does not meet the GNG.
Ref 2 blu-ray.com/Josh-Hammond/454612/ Word for word the same information as Ref 1, but from a less suitable source. No, not even a worthy source for the article.
Ref 3 https://www.tribute.ca/people/josh-hammond/11233/ Almost good enough. But not. The entire content that is secondary source content is "Josh Hammond has successfully made the transition to working as an actor." The rest is directory information facts, primary source information. This summary has no named author. The secondary source information is not of nearly sufficient depth. If this is the best there is, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0358717/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm is apprpraite, Wikipedia is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [81], [82] and [83] are copies of the subject's IMDB profile, so either they're mirrors of IMDB or the subject's agent submitted the same biography to both sites. Either way it doesn't count and IMDB is not a reliable source.
  • [84] looks distinctly like promotional material from the subject or his agent.
  • [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93] merely confirm that the subject appeared in some film and do not represent significant coverage.
  • [94] is a review of a film he was in, all it says about him is that "Josh Hammond has the dubious claim of being the only member of the cast that speaks his lines halfway naturally", which is not significant coverage.
  • [95] is an interview with the subject published in a blog, which isn't a reliable source.
  • [96], to judge from the Google Books preview, just namechecks him as being in a film, which is not significant coverage.
None of these come close to demonstrating that the subject meets the GNG, and for a current US actor any references would likely be easily available. Hut 8.5 07:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Whitehead

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

The article is about one of the founders of a company, however the sources are entirely about the firm, not the individual. They also appear to lack independence as they are all interview style about the company without apparent fact-checking by the media. Details about the person are not independently verified. Have also raised for Dave Obaseki.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Obaseki

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

The article is about one of the founders of a company, however the sources are entirely about the firm, not the individual. They also appear to lack independence as they are all interview style about the company without apparent fact-checking by the media. Details about the person are not independently verified. Have also raised for business associate Eric Whitehead. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More