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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Coast Crew[edit]

Space Coast Crew (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 evidence of notability as an amateur youth rowing team. Some hits but nothing substantial to demonstrate notability through independent secondary sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No references, significant coverage, and there are 3 external links to promote the team instead of help the reader. Analog Horror, (Speak) 04:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Cole[edit]

Sydney Cole (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)

Repeatedly created and poorly sourced bio of a non-notable porn performer. This article was apparently translated from es.Wikipedia. It is sourced entirely to an unreliable porn blog and two adult film databases. An independent search failed to turn up any reliable source coverage to support WP:BASIC or WP:ENT notability. This page started out as a redirect to an unrelated film producer, Sidney Cole. Since the porn bio's creator insists on keeping it, I am bringing it to the community for consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator, references are a mess (that refill 2 couldn't fix for me) and all from dubious sources Joseywales1961 (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reference layout were fixed since my comment, but are still unreliable sources Joseywales1961 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. I suppose it's possible that coverage in reliable sources exists, but the huge lack of digitally-findable sources for someone in the digital era is a very bad sign for notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The page shouldn't be deleted, as it is considered to be of a general interest topic, because, the central person in the article, is considered to be of a relative fame, (see Cole's Awards, and participations) unlike, what sr. Gene93k does say. On the other hand, the page is mistakenly confused with the redirection, as it does not write the same way, it does when spelling "Sidney". Also, that could be solved with an acclaration like, Sydney Cole (Pornographic Actress), to solve the redirection problem. I'll also do my best to improve it as better as posible. It doesn't deserve to be deleted, many articles, with way less coherence nor valuable infromation are still on the web. Why should an article with an average relevance be deleted? • Tomipelegrin (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• General interest (general notability/WP:BASIC for Wikipedia purposes) requires support from independent reliable sources. Porn blogs and film databases are not acceptable sources. The porn awards won would not even have established notability when the old WP:PORNBIO guideline was in effect. They don't do it now especially since PORNBIO has been taken down. The original redirect was there as a plausible search term from an alternate spelling/misspelling. As for the "famous" porn starlet, without good references, she is not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Gene93k, particularly his argument above. Best, PK650 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable performer in pronography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any sources that meet basic wiki notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG Alpateya (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close to allow a new AfD as proposed by davidwr. Sandstein 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Embers Fall[edit]

Where the Embers Fall (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:BAND and WP:GNG. I could not find any notable sources about this music group. Biscuit3413 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Biscuit3413 (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Did not find any RS in regard to their sole album, either. Caro7200 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with existing-but-probably-non-notable article True Fate or preferably, procedurally close and re-open as a multiple AFD for Where the Embers Fall, True Fate, and the leftover history of the now-redirect Fleeting Moments. I suspect all 3 would fall quickly. All 3 were basically created by the same 2 accounts. @Caro7200: would you consent to a procedural close and re-open as a 3-way AFD if Biscuit3413 wanted to take that approach? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

davidwr Sure, I agree to that. Biscuit3413 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Caro7200 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simbi[edit]

Simbi (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 suggest moving to draftspace as it has been unsourced since Dec 2009, per WP:RS Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial rebuttal to deletion rationale It cites two sources, albeit one only as a reference to itself: 1) the coat of arms of Governor General Michaëlle Jean of Canada, as a self-reference (it exists, therefore it exists), and 2) Milo Rigaud's 1969(?) work "Secrets of Voodoo" (it's unclear if City Lights is the name of the parent work or of a location in New York). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with another article on a related topic rather than draft-ify or delete. Any Wikipedian with the time and interest can take the sources in Loa and related articles to beef this one up to at least Start-class with sufficient evidence of notability to withstand any notability-related deletion discussion. I am not that Wikipedian. As a "default" merge target if nothing better is found, go with Loa even though that article also covers Loa from Louisiana Voodoo. I have a weak preference for keeping over merging.
• Sidebar outside the scope of this AFD, should be discussed on Talk:Loa: Merge Loa#Various loa which are barely more than a stub into a list article to avoid future AfDs about them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's pretty trivial to find sources, like [1] Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have begun adding RS, photo, infobox and categories to the article. I also made sure that it is not an orphan. Notable spirit/conduit in the Haitian Vodou religion. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NEXIST, and WP:HEY for Lightburst's additions. In addition to the sources already used in the article, I've found:
  • The Haitian Vodou Handbook: Protocols for Riding with the Lwa by Kenaz Filan, Inner Traditions (2006)
  • Voodoo and Afro-Caribbean Paganism by Lilith Dorsey, Kensington Publishing (2005)
  • The drum and the hoe: Life and lore of the Haitian people by Harold Courlander, University of California Press (1960)
  • Vodoo by Hans Peter Oswald, Lightning Source (2008)

I've added these to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lightburst's additions and the reliable sources cited by the editors above. — Hunter Kahn 00:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Adequate sources exist and are present in the article. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources have been found proving notability of this. Dream Focus 02:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Bay Growth & Innovation Forum[edit]

North Bay Growth & Innovation Forum (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. Strictly promotional in nature Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete due to an absence of a suitable merge target. If the Santa Rosa, California Chamber of Commerce had its own article, I might list there. The page's initial creation by a clearly-COI account tipped me from "neutral" to "weak delete." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermitcraft[edit]

Hermitcraft (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)

Don't think this meets WP:GNG. Most of the sources listed at the time of nomination are not reliable (YouTube, Hermitcraft.com, Minecraft.net). Gampur maybe (?) might meet it, but not significant enough to meet the criteria. EDIT: per Sergecross73, that makes it all of the listed sources not reliable.

Looking up on Google, there are only 6 results returned for the News section, many of which I do not find reliable, including Metro (see WP:RSP#Metro), and the sources that otherwise are only mentions Hermitcraft in passing. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC) edited 16:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Gamepur isn’t an RS either. Sergecross73 msg me 23:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, just notable enough to warrant an article of its own, it may not be large in terms of player count, but the community is very active and dedicated. The article is being kept updated with the latest seasons, too. >>BEANS X2t 07:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC) >>BEANS X2t 15:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That WP:ITSPOPULAR and WP:LOOKSGOOD is not a reason to keep an article, BEANS X2. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity and fan enthusiasm are not valid reasons for keeping an article. (And even if it was, you didn’t cite or quantify anything.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A total of three hits on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine: two of which are forum posts and one is a user-submitted blog. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cant find any evidence that it meets the WP:GNG. All current sourcing is first party or obscure blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 13 March 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. We still don't agree, as a project, about what kind of lists we want to keep or to delete. Sandstein 09:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of train surfing injuries and deaths[edit]

List of train surfing injuries and deaths (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 list, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of accidental electric shocks on railways in Romania is the essence of triviality, and a clear violation of NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The individual events, do not belong in an encyclopedia . If we include this, it would make just as much sense to include lists of everyone who died in any sort of transport related accident.

But the introduction, which discusses numbers for the general phenomenon, could be added to Train surfing. (it also show the worthlessness of the individual listing--it reports 100s a year, but there are many fewer than that listed, just the few that happened to be individually reported & easily findable in online sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A well-sourced list with a clear scope, and an international viewpoint which is hard to find elsewhere.

WP:OSE nominations based on other articles carry no weight about this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge Lots of people die in atypical ways. They make the news when they're gruesome and idiotic. But that doesn't mean we need to attempt to catalogue them all. Very easy to summarize, provide an international viewpoint, and just give examples in the main article without indiscriminately pretending we are EVERYTHING. Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has sources, its notable enough to get ample coverage in reliable sources, just like the other articles of this type listed at Category:Lists of people by cause of death and elsewhere, its a fine part of this encyclopedia and should be kept. Dream Focus 19:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. We simply do not require a list of every single fatality ever known, particularly as pretty much every entry on this list is non-notable and unnamed individuals, to provide a synthesis on train surfing risks. Ajf773 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 05:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very indiscriminate, full of original research. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but where is the WP:OR in this? How is it 'indiscriminate'? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing linking all this incidents and no interest in reliable sources to connect them, so it is an indiscriminate collection of random news. Moreover, there are probably thousands of train surfing incidents, so to create a list of reasonable length one should somehow limit the scope, and as there is no indication how to do it and users do it by themselves, we have original reaserch. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. " Just go to the first para and there's an article on train surfing in Australia and the problems there, as an overall problem. We do not need a specific source which say that "There are railways in Brazil too and amazingly enough falling off a train in Brazil is just as dangerous as falling off a train in Australia is". This is BLUESKY: it's reasonable to look for sources from the national bodies which manage rail safety of national railways, but the similarities from country to country are so self-evident that there's little reason for the UIC to start making international lists as well.

Nor do we even need such a source: the emphasis on groups in LISTN is primarily there for the case when individual entries cannot demonstrate WP:N, whereas these are already well sourced as individuals.

"there are probably thousands of train surfing incidents" is a vague handwave about the wrong topic. This is not about train surfing, it's about cases where that leads to death, or at least serious injury (and these are all already WP:N incidents). If you want to delete List of train surfing incidents, then you're making the wrong argument at the wrong place. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a well sourced list that passes WP:LISTN criteria Lightburst (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andy Dingley and Lightburst. Well-sourced article that passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. — Hunter Kahn 19:05, 7 March 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. BD2412 T 04:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of film director and cinematographer collaborations[edit]

List of film director and cinematographer collaborations (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 list appears to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are no references to any sort of coverage that suggests why certain director/cinematographer collabs are notable.  Bait30  ^Talk? 06:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 06:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 06:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but trim drastically. The partnership between specific directors and cinematographers is notable (e.g. David Lean and Freddie Young, Alfred Hitchcock and Robert Burks),[2][3] but this list goes overboard. Collaborations on TV episodes, for example, are worthless. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trim per User:Clarityfiend. The bar should be set at notable collaborations; Coen brothers/Roger Deakins is another example. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very indiscriminate, full of original research. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This article has zero sources to support the idea that any of these collaborations are notable. If someone wants a list like this to be in the encyclopedia, I would recommend that the article be started over to include only those collaborations which have sources to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am weeding out the unworthy and adding sources. Remember that Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am changing to no opinion in recognition of the fact that Clarityfiend has put effort into adding some sources and removing some of the unsourced collaborations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article is being improved with the addition of references to multiple reliable sources that show that the subject passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Wright[edit]

Aron Wright (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:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I can not find any secondary sources about this Aron Wright; they all appear to be primary sources.  Bait30  ^Talk? 03:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 03:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  ^Talk? 03:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NACADEMIC point 6. Presidents and founders of institutions of higher education have generally met GNG requirements. Gamaliel (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does Miami Valley College count as a major academic institution per #6 of WP:NACADEMIC? The school existed from 1870 to 1883, and I don't know how accreditation worked back then.  Bait30  ^Talk? 19:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A college would need a lot of evidence to establish its having been a major academic institution if it only existed for 13 years. In other words, I would say that Miami Valley College wasn't even close to being a major academic institution. (None of the U.S.'s regional accreditation agencies were founded until a few years after this college closed. But even if the college had remained open a few more years and achieved accreditation, accreditation alone is not enough to establish "major" status.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not every head of every college that ever existed is notable. There is no reading of "major academic institution" that would include Miami Valley College.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to point out that Metropolitan90's reply above was made after this AfD was relisted.  Bait30  ^Talk? 17:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Yale Obituary should be cited, but is not. [4] Some other references: [5][6][7]. WP:NPROF isn't usually so helpful for historical figures. It's a bit hard to find sources going this far back, but it looks like there's some coverage. It may (or may not) be enough for a weak pass of GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zehra Bajraktarević[edit]

Zehra Bajraktarević (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 appear to meet WP:GNG, with a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Google search reveals no RSes to support notability. I suspect that this is why one the sources in the article is for events around the singer's life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the page and I say DELETE. Tvrtko Kotromanic (talk) 4:45PM, 10 March 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nerella Sharada[edit]

Nerella Sharada (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 clearly fails WP:GNG. Becoming a part of Telangana wing of his party and its affiliate organization are not enough for passing our notability criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Multiple sources with significant coverage, meets BASIC.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsztajn (talk • contribs) 28 February 2020 23:58 (UTC)

All source are presented here are routine coverage. And even sources did not make all article notable all time. Please, see Taimur Ali Khan for details.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your point was true, which I do not believe it is, routine is not trivial. NB subclause of BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am not seeing how she meets WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor in-depth coverage needed for WP:NBIO/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She does seem to be meet WP:BASIC with the sources presented. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:ROUTINE. GNG fail. Dorama285 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:ROUTINE cannot be invoked in AfD debates on individuals, WP:ROUTINE refers to the notability of events. Nerella Sharada is the president of a district with 1 million+ inhabitants, and a simple google search indicates plenty of coverage. --Soman (talk) 14:33, 16 March 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. Sandstein 07:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single screen (game perspective)[edit]

Single screen (game perspective) (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 reads like an article built on one arbitrary and unsourced definition: video arcade games where the screen neither scrolls nor allows the player to "move" between different screens.

There are definitely games that fall into that category and it would have been a common design constraint in the early days of videogaming, but it's a grey area, poorly explored here - as illustrated by the article being unclear about whether Space Invaders and Breakout are single-screen games (because they don't scroll) or multiple-screen games which "move beyond these limitations" (because when you clear one level you move to the next one which may have different contents). There are many modern games that would also fall into this category, such as practically any puzzle game, but it doesn't seem like a meaningful progression. Some games have a play area larger than the screen, others don't. Lord Belbury (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Ampasayya[edit]

Campus Ampasayya (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 sufficiently notable. No award, no full-length reviews from independent sources & no independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS ^💬 12:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mekki Hamed Mekki[edit]

Mekki Hamed Mekki (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, though the remover of the PROD claimed it "has sources" - which it doesn't, as they're all dead links. Doesn't appear to be independently notable; I'm pretty sure someone who was genuinely suspected of terrorism wouldn't simply have been deported. Apparently he was eventually charged with immigration fraud. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Those links weren't dead when I checked them and the Fox News piece was substantial coverage about this specific person. But I can't see what's encyclopaedic about this, I can't imagine who would be searching for this information on Wikipedia and it's a textbook BLP1E. Strictly speaking I think the correct outcome would be to merge or redirect somewhere but I'm blessed if I can think where. In the absence of a suitable target I'll support a delete outcome in preference to keep.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as BLP1E, or at most, Merge extremely selectively & redirect to aftermath of the September 11 attacks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 18 March 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) 05:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus fleet in Singapore[edit]

Bus fleet in Singapore (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 evidence of any notability, The article generally focuses on buses owned by SMRT Buses, SBS Transit and Tower Transit Singapore however the 3 already have fleetlists in their articles which is generally preferred over lists such as this, Fails NOTGUIDE (imho) and GNG, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Bus fleet lists are barely notable and often summate to WP:FANCRUFT. While there are some sources in the article, I question how well they actually verify content and to what extent. The nominator also makes a clear point that most fleet lists are limited to the scope of a single owner, and not a consolidation of every operator within a large city. Ajf773 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Right now, most of the buses (about 4,000) and possibly some depots/terminals are still owned by SMRT or SBS and operated in bus packages under the Bus Contracting Model through negotiated contracts that will all expire from now through 2026. The Land Transport Authority will take ownership of all the assets once the contracts expire and tender the contracts out competitively to operators. The rest of the assets are owned by LTA, and all 4 operators currently operate 1 package each under competitive contracts. Skaijie (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ajf. Point in question above, Wikipedia is not the place to mark up ownership of what, whatever the subject. Nightfury 11:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTDIR. Analog Horror, (Speak) 18:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KaisaL (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squirm[edit]

Squirm (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)

Nominating this because of the bands lack of notability. Can barely find any information about them online. GamerPro64 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 18:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Deleted PROD (in 2016) on the basis that it meets WP:NBAND. No evidence given to justify this. Unless/until tere is fails NBAND, GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MAN J[edit]

MAN J (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 indication of notability.

Other than official web site, no indication company even exists. I could not verify purported stock ticker symbol. Possibly qualifies as WP:CSD#G11/unambiguous advertising, but this could be a "student project" such as a real or fake company made up as a classroom exercise or it could be a blatant WP:HOAX. Either way, it should be deleted with prejudice against re-creation unless there is strong evidence Wikipedia's notability guidelines are met. If this is speedy-deleted, please link to this AFD in the deletion log. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Struck some possibilities per this, followup here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NCOMPANY - lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 04:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator There are several discussions on the primary author's talk page, User talk:LilyRoha, that may be relevant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 07:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protofuse[edit]

Protofuse (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)

It seems it is a microagency. No significant coverage. MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article was hijacked in 2019 diff; it used to cover a musician (of dubious notability), until an SPA replaced this content with an article for the advertising agency. Cheers, gnu57 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Genericusername57: I'm not sure what should I do now... maybe request technical close of this AfD and revert the hijacking? --MarioGom (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, that sounds sensible. Cheers, gnu57 15:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw: Given the previous hijack of the article (see above), I withdraw this AfD. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 11 March 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) 05:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonga (singer and producer)[edit]

Bonga (singer and producer) (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 does not satisfy general notability or any of the musical notability criteria. Google search does not find information about the subject (the Tanzanian musician), only about the Angolan musician and the town in Ethiopia. The references in this article are in the nature of press releases rather than in-depth coverage.

Maintenance tags that have been applied to the article have been removed without discussion, so that there has been no effort at resolution of notability issues.

The article consists largely of promotional content and of trivia, which could be removed, but would not leave much because the subject is not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and block the creator. This is either paid for spam or an autobiography. Either way, This Bonga is not notable. (Bonga (musician) however, is.) Praxidicae (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; subject does not pass WP:N criteria Chetsford (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Per nom. (I can’t format my delete on this ipad) Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - See also Draft:Bonga (producer). If the article is deleted, the draft can either be kept for future notability or deleted, based on the consensus as assessed by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 14 March 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) 05:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Arbec[edit]

Debra Arbec (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)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a single-market local television journalist. As always, local television personalities are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but rather they need to meet one or both of two conditions: either they have a nationalized claim of significance, such as winning a noteworthy national journalism award, or they need to have enough reliable source coverage about them to pass WP:GNG. But the three footnotes here are her own staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer, a weekly community hyperlocal, and a university student newspaper -- which means the sourcing isn't good enough for GNG, and there's no nationalized notability claim being made here at all to relieve her of having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local level broadcast jouranlist, nothing rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per nom, no evidence this meets GNG or NJOURNALIST. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the 2011 Gazette reference in the article easily meets GNG with it's in depth story about here. And I just added another recent in-depth piece. How User:Levivich doesn't this meet GNG? Also added four six other references related to her Canadian Screen Award nominations, win, and previous awards. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that you can use to get a person over GNG do not include (a) the alumni magazine of their own alma mater, (b) small neighbourhood pennysavers like The Montrealer or The Suburban, (c) university student newspapers like The Concordian, or (d) content self-published by her own past or present employers. So the only source you've added that counts a bean toward getting her over GNG is the Montreal Gazette article, and that's not enough to singlehandedly pass GNG all by itself — even a basic GNG pass requires quite a bit more than just one source of that calibre.

Also, she did not win the Canadian Screen Award in 2019 — the winner of a category in that source is the person whose name is bolded, not the person whose name is first. The bolded name and winner in 2019 was Michelle Dubé, and Arbec has never won a Canadian Screen Award at all to date in any category. And the awards that she has won are much less notable awards that are not notability clinchers if they can be "sourced" only to her own staff profile from her own employer — the extent to which any award confers an WP:ANYBIO pass is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which the granting of that award gets reported as news by media other than her own employer. If your only possible sources for any given award are (a) her own staff profile on her own employer's website, or (b) the awarding organization's own self-published website or press release about itself, because fully independent /journalistic reportage about that award is non-existent, then by definition that award is not notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it.

And while the Canadian Screen Awards do get reported as news, and thus are an ANYBIO-passing award, merely being nominated for an award that a person has not won is still not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt her from having to get over GNG on her sourcing either — so she still needs more than just one solid source amid a bunch of university student newspapers, neighbourhood pennysavers and WP:SPIP from her own employer before she clears the bar. Bearcat (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the Montreal Gazette article - it was added by User:RebeccaGreen in November 2019 during the AFD - why did User:ST47 not mention that a GNG sournce had been added after everyone had commented, when they originally closed the AFD? I disagree with statement that Concordia article isn't good for GNG. It's an in-depth article about a notable former student. I also disagree that local newspapers don't count for notability - there's nothing to back that up GNG - though is "The Montrealer a local newspaper ... I thought it was a website, and wasn't counting it to GNG. Tell me more about these local newspaper articles that I haven't seen? Oops, I goofed about the award win - I appreciate the fix - but I didn't see that counted to GNG either, given the brevity of it - I even commented about those references not meeting GNG when I added them! Nfitz (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been reincluded in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been reincluded in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been reincluded in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks any in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Most coverage seems to be promotional blurbs from alumni organization, her TV station, network, or industry award organization announcing her nomination. Glendoremus (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why User:Glendoremus do you not think that this is not reliable, independent, and in-depth? Sure, many of the references are blurbs, etc., documenting her career. But that's fine, as long as there is some reliable independent in-depth coverage. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is not that as long as there's one piece of reliable independent in-depth coverage, the person gets a free pass over GNG even if all the rest of their sourcing is unreliable, non-independent or non-in-depth junk — even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires several pieces of reliable, independent and in-depth coverage, not just one. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since when do we re-open months-old AfD debates? Still a non-notable local journalist, and overturning a close that had zero opposition doesn't seem to be right to me. ST47 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GMN Healthcare[edit]

GMN Healthcare (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)

An article on this company's main product (contributed by the same editor, and with similar references) was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro360 Nutrition Partner). An Indian media search turned up another version of the Nutrition & Wellness Awards 2019 report, but that Emerging Company award is not inherently notable. I am not seeing the coverage about the company which is required to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely PROMO at present, clean up does not seem possible as I would agree with nominator that there are no independent sources to be found, other than directory/sales listings, I can only see one piece of churnalism on Forbes India, no notability demonstrated, fails CORP.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable advert. Dorama285 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s[edit]

List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s (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)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Listcruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. IW. (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC) I still believe this is a non sense list. However I do understand the notability of representation which means the best option should be to move it to History of LGBT and animated series, relevant and concise to the points. An example one could follow is History of homosexuality in American film. IW. (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it still has value in its current form. That would be a good example, but that page has very little sourcing and considering that most of the animation on this page is anime, there are very few English sources. For the time being, I'm just reorganizing it into gender identities so its easier to navigate.Historyday01 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't challenge my argument at all, if anything, it solidifies it. IW. (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that solidifies it. Lets say that we do make an article specifically about the history of LGBT characters and themes in animated series. Great, that'd be an amazing idea. But I don't see how going from that, to a page which is just about the characters and nothing else (sans a lead paragraph) is nonsensical. Rather than focusing on various aspects of the representation, history, and all that, it focuses squarely on the characters. We have history of animation, which gives info on the medium, but we also have pages that are just lists and focuse solely on which films were released; either by decade, country, etc. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Building off what PanagiotisZois said, I don't think it solidifies it either. We could create an article like that, but I think it should be created while keeping these list pages.Historyday01 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't believe this is an indiscriminate or trivial list, and given the subject matter I think it's at least mildly insulting to suggest that it is (though I do not believe it's the nominator's intention to be insulting). I believe it's more than appropriate to have a list about this subject matter, something we have had in decades past. It should be well-sourced and this article could use some work in that regard, but it would not be difficult at all to find reliable sources for most of these entries, and the need for improvement is not a valid reason to delete an article. — Hunter Kahn 15:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though trim out entries that aren't sourced to a third-party. Entries should be either a third-party making the observation, or the creator of the work talking to a third-party about the choice to make the character(s) LGBT as to 100% confirm the listing on here. --Masem (t) 15:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close The original list of List of animated series with LGBT characters should have been nominated as well and marked with a template, as it's roughly the same, only nominating this amounts to WP:GAMING behavior._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I know we're not supposed to use WP:INTERESTING to support a topic's notability, but I think the nomination is essentially based on WP:NOTINTERESTING. I think the article needs at least a good paragraph of text about the subject, but that can be resolved with normal editing. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this list meets our criteria for WP:LISTN. This is informative and aides in navigation. The list serves our readers, and that is why we exist. The list was created today and has had no time to breath before being slapped with multiple templates. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unsurprisingly. First of all, I would not call such a page as "listcruft". Multiple such lists focusing on LGBT characters have existed on Wikipedia for years. And other similar lists which people could describe as arbitrary exist; such as List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication, which is even a featured list. LGBT representation, especially in the past few decades has become a much discussed subject. In fact, while I can't talk much about anime, I have found multiple articles discussing LGBT representation in Western animation from the past few years; such as how it has progressed and improved in the last few years. Thus, it's not like a grouping like List of animated series with LGBT characters is arbitrary, and it does have notability. Moreover, regarding representation of minority characters in media, I'm sure there are other similar examples about, i.e. Black / African-American characters. Having said that, I do kind of where TheLongTone is coming from and a problem somebody could argue this list has. It is a very focused one; concerning LGBT characters, in a specific medium, and in a specific decade. One may ask, why does it have to be this specific? But that's kind of the problem. Obviously having a list with every single LGBT character from every fictional medium would be impossible to manage and navigate. Hence the creation of the aforementioned "LGBT characters in animated series list". But even that list ended up being the single largest one on Wikipedia. On the list's talk page, various options on how to split it were discussed, but this seemed to best and most objective one; rather than separating them by country of origin. Going back to what I said earlier about coverage for the cartoons, I'm sure that that is also something that can be discussed in the lead section and showcase how this kind of list / grouping didn't just randomly pop out of nowhere. Lastly, while the list has issues, a shitton, I don't think that warrants a deletion. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia in an even worse condition, but they're still kept. They have the potential to change and become better; so does this page. Now, I'm not gonna make a false promise and say that I'll single-handedly bring this page to featured list status, but I'm willing to help with it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia Whataboutism. IW. (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This article was a bold split from the main article, List of animated series with LGBT characters, and so is List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s, as can be seen in the page history of the main article, and a very brief discussion on the talk page of the main article. Unfortunately, the advice given at split was not followed - To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name". The Copied template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline. So using the nominator's logic, then all of these articles should be deleted, or in the alternative, be recoginized for what they are, splits from the main article (that didn't follow the information listed at WP:PROSPLIT). Isaidnoway (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Listcruft my foot. (Which other editors put more elegantly.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They get coverage for this, so its a notable thing to list. Dream Focus 23:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The page clearly needs work, but its existence helps with reducing the size of the original page. I think the comment by [[User:Isaidnoway| Isaidnoway ] is a good one. There should be a summary or description at the beginning of this article. Splitting this off into its own article seems very slapdash as to say the least.Historyday01 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Listcruft may be rationale to trim a bit, not to delete. gidonb (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm working on List of animated series with left-handed charcters as we speak.TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not promising to keep that one! gidonb (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, perfectly acceptable list, and the subject of reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Gleeanon409. I will soon be working on this list to organize it the same as the "List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s" and "List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s" pages. On the latter page, the sourcing still needs some work, clearly. But, that's a work in progress.Historyday01 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per OP's reasoning. This, along with the other 2 articles need to be improved upon from the source article.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the very definition of an article that should be improved rather than deleted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gleeanon409. Loyalmoonie's reasoning is flawed and doesn't recognize the importance of reducing the size of Wikipedia articles, which is the reason this one exists. The article MUST be improved rather than deleted, which is what I am trying to do, currently.Historyday01 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sarracino[edit]

Steve Sarracino (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 as part of new page curation process. IMO misses wp:notability by a long shot. No suitable coverage for wp:notability. Secondary source coverage is just brief mentions or quotes. Nothing even claimed in the article indicates wp:notability. A sidebar concern is that the creator is obviously wiki-experienced but has only 22 lifetime edits under this user name, all on 2 corporate bios and one business. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources that are reliable are actually about Sarracino. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IT Works[edit]

IT Works (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)

It seems it fails WP:GNG, although given its name, it was a bit hard to do a search test. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article describes this as a "niche software development company". The Products section describes its sectoral opportunity, the Leadership section describes the CEO and the exotically-named Research Institution Success Stories/Product Development section says they attend trade fairs: all suitable for the website of a company going about its business, but mundane, without claim to notability. Searches combining the company name with sector descriptions return listings but not the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Association for Jewish Studies[edit]

Ukrainian Association for Jewish Studies (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 claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A learned society is usually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First, it's a common non-profit organization, not a learned society; moreover, it is quite new (founded in 2015) and have not received any coverage by reliable sources. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure how relevant this is, but the UAJS certainly portrays itself as a learned society: "In cooperation with world’s top academic institutions, the UAJS organizes round tables, discussions, public lectures, mini courses, and other academic events. The UAJS co-administers the MA in Jewish Studies Program [....] Judaica Ukrainica, a peer-reviewed annual journal of the UAJS, accepts scholarly contributions – articles, documentary publications, and reviews[.]" I can't find anything to suggest this portrayal is somehow false. -- Visviva (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, encyclopedic, no clear rationale for deletion (and while it's often forgotten on AFD, deletion should always be a last resort reserved for unsalvageable content). NORG seems to be adequately satisfied by the cited sources (e.g. at least two paragraphs of dedicated coverage here, an English-language profile of the founder with significant detail on the organization here). But even if the subject-matter of the article fails NORG, that would merely suggest that the UAJS does not merit a stand-alone article -- i.e. it should be merged to some other article on a more general topic. There is no deadline, so we can wait for topic editors to create Jewish Studies in Ukraine or similar, at which time they can reach a consensus on whether this content should be merged there or kept distinct. -- Visviva (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the Russian discussion attracted a grand total of one (1) participant, and the nom there seems to have hinged on significance (?!) rather than sourcing. I assume that was a proper application of RU's policies, but it would be a highly inappropriate example to follow here. -- Visviva (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Visviva:, not significance; значимость means notability (WP:GNG). Wikisaurus (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see sources, so I see notability. From my experience with the Russian Wikipedia they delete organizations (commercial or non-profit) far too easy and without serious discussion. In any case, that is not valid argument. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 3 March 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. Can be draftified via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Robledo[edit]

Diego Robledo (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 anything that adds up to WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. The provided sources are a mess of trivial and non-independent coverage; the absolute best among them are [8] and [9], which don't have more than trivial coverage of Robledo. As for MUSICBIO, none of the orchestras that Robledo has played in seem to be notable, and given the size of orchestras, I'm not sure that simply having played in a notable one would even be enough for MUSICBIO to begin with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Comment I circled back on this article at least a half dozen times. In approving this out of AfC I relied on the 6th prong of WP:MUSICBIO. I'll be the first to admit I'm probably not as qualified as some in making the determination of what constitutes a notable ensemble. I didn't examine each ensemble individually, but instead took into consideration the totality of his involvement with multiple ensembles. My judgement was that this subject had a better than not (if even just barely) chance of surviving AfD. To be honest, I have no real interest in defending this article one way or another, just stating my logic in approving it. Ultimately, the best arbiter of this may be some well versed in ensembles. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify The nomination is broadly correct but I have difficulty suggesting delete because there is enough to suggest that the subject may be able to pass WP:NMUSICBIO either with more time or more research. Not currently notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:32, 6 March 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) 14:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Sanson[edit]

Dominique Sanson (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)

After noticing this article did not have any Reliable sources attached to it I search for this artist. I was not able to find any Reliable sources that would make this individual notable for a Wikipedia article.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A search found one source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant self-promotion. Deb (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I cannot find anything to substantiate the notability of this person, nor their work or that it is held in public museum collections. Does not pass WP:NARTIST Netherzone (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no WP:RS, and external link goes to a FB page. --Theredproject (talk) 15:51, 14 March 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. Kinu ^t/_c 05:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Memory of a Melody[edit]

Memory of a Melody (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 sampling of the sources:

• Emurg.com: 404
• OurCityRadio.com: 404
• TuneCore: Directory listing
• Amazon.com: Not allowed to be linked
• BraveWords: Appears to be a blog with no editorial oversight
• Sacurrent.com: Passing mention as one of many acts at a single concert
• Rocksposure.com: Blog where artists can submit to be advertised
• Music.apple.com: Sales site, not allowed
• RenegadeRadio: 404
• Metalholic: Advertising blog

And so on. Most of the semi-reputable sources seem to be merely blogs where musicians can submit their content for review and advertisement purposes. Everything else is a trivial mention, a sales site, or a 404. The article smacks of WP:REFBOMBing. I chainsawed out a "trivia" section (really, we're still doing that shit?) that added nothing in terms of notability. The band exists and has extensively cherry-picked as many passing mentions as possible to appear far more notable than they really are. They don't even have so much as a placeholder on Allmusic. The content present smacks of advertising at best but does not give a true assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article is well sourced. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jax 0677: Did you even read what I said about the sources? Nearly all of the sources are either 404, sales sites, or promotional blogs that only publish PR blurbs for bands that pay for the right. Literally almost nothing in the article is a WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon, this is my first time participating on WikiPedia. I am a Spotify convert for this band, and thought I could help. I have tried to review the rules as best I could in a short time. From what I can tell, the main issue is if the artist is "notable" and I believe this artist is. I jumped onto Spotify and they've got ~4.6 million listens on their most popular song, and three songs over the 1 million mark. On Youtube their official channel has a fair following with 2.45k subscribers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaEyLZWWUUA). Regarding links, the EMURG link may be updated via the wayback machine (https://web.archive.org/web/20131205225130/http://www.emurg.com/rock/memory-of-a-melody-things-that-make-you-scream/). Finally, I respectfully dispute the characterization of Metalholic as an advertising blog. The author of the piece on Memory of a Melody has written quite a lot and doesn't seem to be affiliated with the band (http://metalholic.com/author/quasimojo/) Although Metalholic does state they allow "PR" submissions on their about page, I don't actually think that's what this is, or if it is, there's some sort of curating and review process. I assess this by looking at the author and seeing he has many submissions, not just Memory of a Melody, but am open to correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.174.169 (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @75.163.174.169: Please read this page right here. This elucidates the notability of artists. Spotify numbers are not a factor of notability for us. Neither are YouTube subscribers. I have thousands of them myself and I only rarely upload videos. The blogs are borderline at best and seem highly promotional. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Could not really find any RS about their sole album, either. Caro7200 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This band was formed in 2012, giving plenty of time for solid sources to appear if they were notable; clearly they are not.TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator's thorough analysis of sourcing. Can't blame Jax 0677 for trying to keep his own article  ;) ——SN54129 18:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dundurn Press. Sandstein 09:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Allen & Son Limited[edit]

Thomas Allen & Son Limited (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 and WP:ORGCRIT BonkHindrance (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• i'm not sure how notable the organisation is in its present form, but as a publisher it was certainly notable, and the article should deal with both.Rathfelder (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability is not established in this case. PKT(alk) 13:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the publisher Thomas Allen & Son is undeniably notable, & Dundurn Press is notable. Howabout we take the parts worth saving & add them to those 2 articles & rearrange the content so we don't even need to replace what was here with a redirect? -- llywrch (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - the only apparent merge target is Dundurn Press (pace Llywrch?) as "Thomas Allen Publishers" redirects to it. As there's so little in Thomas Allen & Son Limited and it's so closely related to Dundurn Press, a merge does seem the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 10 March 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 Gila County, Arizona. Sandstein 09:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burch, Arizona[edit]

Burch, Arizona (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)

Another passing siding, formerly on the SP and now on the Arizona Eastern Railway, a mile or so south of their shop at the north end of the line. There's no siding there now and I can find no evidence that anyone considered this a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Was a mining camp, had a population of 15 in the 1930s when this was written, but this was probably higher in the 1870s mining boom. A mention in Globe, Arizona might be appropriate.----Pontificalibus 19:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect A temporary work camp at a mine is not a notable settlement or necessarily a legally recognized community, can be discussed in history/geography of nearby established city. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Reywas92 recommendation. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Likely keep per [www.newspapers.com/image/583742615/] [www.newspapers.com/image/46152492/] (notes a station) and another article noting a pumping site - need to do more work, very surnamey and newspapers.com seems to be down for maintenance mid-research but seems to have been a populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete As per SportingFlyer, there are two trivial articles in newspapers.com: Smelter to be build near Globe and Suspect released in conjunction with murder. As per the nomination, the WPA Guide that stated that Burch had a population of 15. Interestingly, a different edition of the WPA guide does not mention the population. It does not appear that Burch had a Post Office or was otherwise legally recognized. This location does not have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources", but somehow I feel it is a level above the random stations that we have been seeing lately that clearly need to go. Cxbrx (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment possible redirect target Gila County, Arizona Lightburst (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Globe, Arizona. Or redirect to Gila County, Arizona. Or delete. Burch is not a legally recognized location. Some versions of the WPA guide state that there was a population of 15 at Burch, but there is a lack of non-trivial coverage. Cxbrx (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even though it's unclear whether or not there is a current population, in the 1930s there was a population of people. Notability isn't temporary. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KaisaL (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Guenther Braun[edit]

Jan Guenther Braun (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:Author and WP:ANYBIO. Largely based on WP:PRIMARY, so I also searched for sources outside the article but couldn't find much. Dorama285 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would not call for a speedy deletion, since she does have some write-ups in scholarly work and has some citations. Reasonable minds can disagree - this is not an open and shut case. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reached out to three relevant wiki-projects in the hope of getting more discussion. I do not believe this violations WP:CANVASS. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:, you might ask at the Refdesk if anyone has leads on profiles or scholarly criticism. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't think it meets criteria for speedy delete. With respect to WP:AUTHOR, I think there is enough there about queer identity in the Mennonite context that it may meet criterion 3. That possible area is admittedly a relatively specific one, but I wouldn't rule it out. With respect to WP:PRIMARY, the first four references in the article are written by individuals other than the subject, so I don't think it's clearly a reliance on primary sources. However since those cites aren't online, it's difficult to judge. The fact of only one book published certainly counts against notability. I think further investigation is needed. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This obviously doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, so that should be out of the question. As for the non-primary sources offered, the Cruz book has a 17-page chapter about Braun's novel, the Kuester paper has about three pages of coverage, and the Milne article is a two-page review. All are published by academic publishers. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the sources that I identified above not sufficient to demonstrate notability? I really think that something needs to be done to stop people commenting at AfD without taking the previous discussion into account. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To reiterate Phil Bridger's point, there are some significant academic non-trivial sources establishing this writer's importance. User:Mennowiki
• Keep Now that Phil Bridger has reviewed the hard copy material (Thanks, Phil), I think there is sufficient academic commentary on the author to move to Keep. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The first three sources in the article make it clear that this is a notable work worthy of academic interest. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources identified. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Phil Bridger. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:07, 13 March 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. BD2412 T 22:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Falk[edit]

Matt Falk (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:ENTERTAINER BonkHindrance (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Dorama285 (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How is CBC, Mennonite World Review, and The Canadian Mennonite not "reliable sources?" Please clarify. User:Mennowiki

We get it, he's a Mennonite. What else has he done? Dorama285 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get articles written about you in such publications by virtue of "being a Mennonite." Nor does this Wikipedia article say, "Matt Falk is a Mennonite. Done." It clearly states he's a noted stand-up comedian, with successful albums, appearances, etc. (User:Mennowiki))

Reworded some of the article and added another two sources from CBC and CTV News. (User:Mennowiki))

• Delete - Most of the sources are just different publications from the same websites and the same content. For example, there are 3 sources from CBC that talk about the exact same thing with no encyclopedic information, and two from Mennonite News which do the exact same thing. There is no notability. Analog Horror, (Speak) 03:02, 16 March 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piccadilly Pub[edit]

Piccadilly Pub (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:ORGCRIT and WP:RS BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm seeing coverage in Newspaper Archive. Will add some to article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added some newspaper articles, one of which I found on the open internet. The subject meets WP:GNG. Cleanup/removal of press releases is in order, and expansion would be nice, but AfD isn't that. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable chain of pubs/restaurants which RS can be found to pass WP:V and WP:N. 11 locations WP:NTEMP Wm335td (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:ORGCRIT as nom says, specifically WP:AUD. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DiamondRemley39's additional sources, has RS. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable chain of restaurants which had 13 locations at one time in the New England area of the United States. Notability is not temporary. Passes WP:ORGCRIT:with significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Many sources exist outside of the article. Telegram, Boston Globe, and more. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Common Room of the Great North[edit]

The Common Room of the Great North (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)

Spam article failing WP:GNG BonkHindrance (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Promotional article with no notability demonstrated. Article creator admits new organisation - though developed from a long established one - so secondary material is scarce. Some of the "secondary" sources added some are PR and/or WP:ROUTINE. I think this may be WP:TOOSOON. Suggest a selective merge to North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers. buidhe 15:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a short summary (one paragraph) to NEIMME as Buidhe rightly suggests. NEIMME is a well-established institute and a valuable resource for the study of mining in Britain (much appreciated by this Wikipedian). The 'Common Room' is an innovation within NEIMME and may well be short-lived. It is worthy enough but its independent notability is far from established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested above. --Bduke (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• You folk are hard to please! As article creator I disagree that the article should be merged because the Common Room may be short lived - where is the evidence for that? The Common Room is not an innovation within NEIMME - without the Common Room NEIMME's assets that provide the "valuable resource for the study of mining in Britain" would have been sold and probably dispersed. To reduce this article to a paragraph in the NEIMME article does not seem appropriate. Mining007 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Templeton[edit]

Leslie Templeton (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 is essentially advocacy; a press release, not a WP article. I don't think it is fixable--the advocacy is pervasive throughout the article, there isn't really enough underlying notability DGG ( talk ) 10:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draftify If the page creator intended this to go through the AfC process and is willing to go through that process then draftify is fine. Otherwise, delete per nom. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This sounds promotional and should not even be a draft let alone a article Dq209 (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only really mainstream media source is Deutsche Welle, and its coverage of the is merely a couple of soundbites from interviewing the subject, nothing about her. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First of all the introductory paragraphs are written as WP:PROMO and fails to comply with WP:NPOV. The article is biased and has been clearly written as an advertisement. Abishe (talk) 07:57, 15 March 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) 05:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Choudhary Mohammad Yasin[edit]

Choudhary Mohammad Yasin (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 and couldn't obtain much information about the subject in Google search index. Seems to have written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Nom. Just being a Deputy Commissioner does not provide a presumption of notability to qualify for a stand alone article. "There needs to be more sourcing evidence advancing notability". Evidence of a promotional article can be seen by the repeating of one source five times (50%), that is obvious refbombing to pad sourcing, to give the illusion of such notability. Otr500 (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable bureaucrat that fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YRG Care[edit]

YRG Care (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 and clearly fails to comply with WP:NPOV. It has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lots of coverage in independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No evidence of a reasonable BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. Please do not conflate content with the subject of the article. YRG CARE was founded by the the doctor who first identified HIV in India. Subject of studies in peer-reviewed journals.^[1][2] Clearly the centre was a pioneer of HIV/AIDS research in India.^[3][4] "one of India’s first voluntary HIV counselling and testing facilities...YRG care ... [undertook] fundamental and important clinical trials in conjunction with the NIH AIDS clinical trials programme...[Solomon's] work and the setting up of YRG CARE were significant factors in slowing the epidemic."^[5]

--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment : All content is sourced and everything written is factual. Unsure why it was perceived promotional. If specific portions that come across as promotional are highlighted, can rework on those to make it more neutral.

IamKhandelwal (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Goldsztajn.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 12 March 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. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Entrepreneurial Acceleration Lab[edit]

Raleigh Entrepreneurial Acceleration Lab (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)

Run-of-the-mill startup accelerator. Lacks significant coverage. MarioGom (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant coverage. Nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons already given. Plus, it seems like they where pretty flash in the pan and only lasted for a while around 2013. There website doesn't even work. So, there's no chance they will ever be notable if they aren't already. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 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.