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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myths about Hinduism[edit]

Myths about Hinduism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article does not cover any topic clearly at this moment. A few quotations are there. Merge with Hinduism or delete. Titodutta (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Titodutta (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Titodutta (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We already have 'anti-Hindu sentiment', which discusses various controversies about the faith tradition. We don't need to redo that. This article here has multiple problems, as stated above, and overall doesn't seem worth keeping. The formatting itself ('myths about/of _____') is something that we generally don't consider encyclopedic anyways, I think. We don't have, for instance, 'myths about Wikipedia'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also this reeks of WP:Original Research --Cedix (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to anti-Hindu sentiment. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, destroy, and freeze dry it. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Computing (Urdu magazine)[edit]

Computing (Urdu magazine) (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)

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete It looks like a hoax, swims and quacks like a hoax to me. The external link links to a parked domain (a Wayback snapshot from 2007 shows it is a forum and nothing to do with a magazine), the native name returns nothing relevant from search results, the names of the editor and publisher also return only Wikipedia mirrors, and the ISSN link returns a 404. The article was created in 2007, and it seems that the only people who have added substiantial content to it are SPAs. Even if this supposed publication somehow exists, there is no indicator of notability. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naya Waraq[edit]

Naya Waraq (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)

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 29 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Video Satellite[edit]

Audio Video Satellite (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)

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Burfield[edit]

Evan Burfield (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)

Flimsy evidence here of much that meets WP:GNG criteria, the article mostly hangs upon a linkedIn page, profiles in publications he writes for, and other primary sources. Being co-named as an 'Innovator of the Year' by a regional Chamber of Commerce doesn't count for anything. Time for this promotional article to go. Sionk (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - coverage is almost entirely local. I don't understand what he's done that might be considered notable. Thousands of businesses have been founded in the DC metro area in the past decade alone; for background, see this and that. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Contemporary Digital Art[edit]

Museum of Contemporary Digital Art (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 appear notable based on current sourcing or search for new sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of WP:RS to establish NCORP. I also have questions about the related Contemporary and Digital Art Fair. It may very well become notable, but right now it is TOOSOON. --Theredproject (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G5, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FadedOrange. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already deleted. (non-admin closure) buidhe 15:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manufactured Museum of Digital Art[edit]

Manufactured Museum of Digital Art (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 cannot find a single source. NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I ran a whois on the domain name that this article is about. The domain name is freely published in the article, so I figured it would be ok to check it. It appears to have been a few days old when the article was created. Meaning this is fake, or fabricated for Wikiepdia promotion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of WP:RS to establish NCORP. --Theredproject (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theredproject: this article turned out to be for a web site that was registered the same day the article was made. Almost a hoax. Se COIN for more.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can be closed article deleted, creator blocked as sock.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not seeing GNG shown here. There's some coverage but nothing convincing. No problem with recreation if suitable sourcing can be found. Fenix down (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lampung F.C.[edit]

Lampung F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is unreferenced, and I can't find any corroborating information either at the enWiki page for the league that the team supposedly plays in or on idWiki. Searching online, I was only able to find results about Badak Lampung F.C., which is a different team. I'm honestly a bit uncertain about what to do at this juncture: I can't find evidence that this subject is notable, it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect to Liga 3 (Indonesia) as there's no mention of the team there, and redirecting to Badak Lampung may be inappropriate if there really is a real team named Lampung F. C. As a result, deletion may be the best possible option available to us if we can't find reliable sources covering the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm unfortunately fine with a delete result - the Liga 3 is provincial and there are a number of similar teams. It's not impossible they're notable, but it's an extremely difficult search. SportingFlyer T·C 02:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's probably notable, but there's not enough sources yet to satisfy this. Maybe a relist? SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is very confusing. The article says that this team was formerly called "PSBL Bandar Lampung", but PSBL Bandar Lampung has its own page and still exists[1] (Yeah, the website is really called "Lampost", presumably acronym of "Lampung Post"). And a template on idWiki lists them as different teams[2]. And finally, there's Badak Lampung F.C., which plays in the second league and is thus more notable and gets more editor attention. So "Lampung F.C." seems to be a team of its own, but lacks notability, and the information on the current page about is flawed. –Austronesier (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add The "official site"-link is just a newsblog which mentions that "Lampung F.C." were runner-up for the 2014 Liga Indonesia Premier Division, but—alas—they didn't make it[3]. That was their 15 minutes of fame, and the article was created more or less at that time. –Austronesier (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lampung F.C. was runner-up of the 2013 Indonesian Premier Division (LPIS), which was a dualism and unofficial version of Indonesia Premier Division. And I found it funny that Lampung FC is redirected to Badak Lampung F.C. which is no connection between both teams. Lampung FC wasn't part of PSSI in 2014 but joined in Liga 3 Lampung in 2017. And it's different with PSBL. Wira rhea (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - They were the top team in the second tier in 2013, and went on the final in the play-offs. This would have made them arguably one of the best non-fully professional teams in the country. Their players might not be quite notable - but how is the team not notable? This was extensively reported in the media at the time example. At the risk of "other things" the other 20 teams that played in tier 2 that season all have articles. A separate question is if this is the same team as PSBL Bandar Lampung - and if so one the articles should redirect to the other. Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PSBL Bandar Lampung and Lampung F.C. are not the same team, see here[4]. –Austronesier (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, The article is unsourced and shows no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sourcing issues have not been adequately addressed. If the newspapers turn up more, then this could benefit from another discussion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kehrberger[edit]

Nicole Kehrberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable artist, fails WP:ARTIST. Didn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of sources doesn't pass WP:RS, they all are about event news, regular news etc. Other than some passing mention, i didn't found anything. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable WP:PUFFERY. Small chance there could be coverage in German-language publications, but I am not seeing anything at all. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources that were in the article at the time of deletion were insufficient, but I have found additional sources (including books and newspaper reviews) to establish her notability as an artist or entertainer which I am adding to the page. To me, the article appears very brief and far from promotional, but if there are any further issues with the contents of the page, that is a job for cleanup not deletion.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks but how just one passing mention on a whole book or a mention on www.publico.pt/2007... (which actually reviews works of Italian director Antonio Latella, not her's) proves she is notable? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the book Das rumänische Theater nach 1989 mentioning Kehrberger once on page 131 does not count toward notability. Per WP:N, there has to be significant coverage. I'm concerned that the other sources also have similarly trivial mentions (as indicated by WP:SIGCOV). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have found some additional sources like this and this coming from reputable Italian newspapers. To me the article deserves to be included also because the artist has won several prices including the Ubu Prize and Premio della critica which both confirm her notability also at an International level.--Doratig (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but how https://issuu.com is reliable site WP:RS or how a passing mention on theatre site like http://www.klpteatro.it & http://www.criticiditeatro.it/ proves she is notable? anyway Premio della critica doesn't says she won any award there. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some of the sourcing are very good (I speak Italian and I know those newspapers) and she has worked in the most prestigious Theatre of Rome. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which source are good. Could you please tell me how a passing mention on [5] or [6] or [7] are significant coverage & pass WP:RS? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Bone and Joint Institute[edit]

Illinois Bone and Joint Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, lack of independent, in-depth coverage in RS. Sources are all all primary or routine press-releases. MB 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MB 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - improve the references and expand the article to better reflect WP:GNG ala Google News. Hmlarson (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The majority of articles are, as stated, press releases, doctor reviews or generic statements of location expansion or employee acquisitions. News articles are more about the doctors affiliated with the organization vs. the institute itself, along the lines of "Dr. Whozit, a practitioner at the Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, did this thing...". Most of the article's references point back to their own website. The institute hasn't been around long enough to have deep research, historic or cultural significance. LovelyLillith (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any that do. Topic fails WP:GNG/wp:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nem Um Talvez[edit]

Nem Um Talvez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Unsourced since 2009. Vmavanti (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Two book sources now added, though both relate to the 1970 Miles Davis session; I'd like to see more supporting references regarding subsequent recordings (especially to support assertions such as another version being "well-known"). If such are not forthcoming, a merge to Live-Evil_(Miles_Davis_album)#Background might be appropriate? AllyD (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: AllyD has added sources from books. I've added one as well by Richard Cook (journalist) which is notable in my opinion. Lunar Clock (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources added by AllyD & Lunar Clock are good enough for the article to be kept. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The current sourcing certainly isn't enough for the article to be kept. The Morton one contains less than half a sentence. The So What book contains a few sentences on legal problems. I can't access the It's about that Time book, but all it sources in the article is the sentence "On the record, it is wrongly attributed to Miles Davis". The relevant criteria here are WP:NSONG – in particular, "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". Unless more information can be sourced, a redirect to / merge with Live-Evil (Miles Davis album) is therefore appropriate. EddieHugh (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Sulaimān Nūri[edit]

Shah Sulaimān Nūri (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 person in the religious lineage of a small Pakistani sect. No reliable sources quoted. One of a string of recently created articles by the same editor. Delete or draftify. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This and similar articles are not encyclopaedically written but I think their notability is open to debate. We regard all bishops of major Christian denominations as notable, but I don’t think we have clear guidelines for Islam. There’s a case that the head of a tariqa in a country is automatically notable. I’m not !voting on this one but would be interested in working with some editors in drafting some notability guidelines for Muslim bios. Please leave a note on my talk page if you’re interested. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- best to approximate WP:NBISHOP for Islam until other standards can be developed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Even NBISHOP (which is an essay, not a policy) requires "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources". The article has been AfD's because of lack of such sources. Moreover, a high-ranking official of the Catholic Church usually is, I am sorry to say, of a different calibre than a village "holy man", hardly known beyond the nearest town, and mostly just a name in the religious lineage that each and every South Asian sect must compulsorily offer for its faithful. For Shah Sulaimān Nūri, do you see any real information other than the fact that he was "learned and pious" and his parents were "kind and noble"? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all,User :Kashmiri I respect your point of view about this article.I want to say that he is not just "learned and pious" or just a "kind and noble" personality.He is a historical personality in the 16th century.You can see his historical presence in the existing article, Muhammad Qadiri in the title of "Golden Chain".so he was not just a noble and learned man,he was a man with a history in Qadiriyya silsila.While the fact that he is hardly known beyond the nearest town is totally baseless.Why would someone from 200 km or 300 km away write book on him if he is hardly known beyond the nearest town?.And in case of reliable and independent sources,you can watch the sources that these sources have no directly link with the "personality".so i just request you to reconsider your view about this article..Thank you so much.User:Saadulhassan2

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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Maroof Khushabi[edit]

Shah Maroof Khushabi (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 person in the religious lineage of a small Pakistani sect. No reliable sources quoted. One of a string of recently created articles by the same editor. Delete or draftify. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This and similar articles are not encyclopaedically written but I think their notability is open to debate. We regard all bishops of major Christian denominations as notable, but I don’t think we have clear guidelines for Islam. There’s a case that the head of a tariqa in a country is automatically notable. I’m not !voting on this one but would be interested in working with some editors in drafting some notability guidelines for Muslim bios. Please leave a note on my talk page if you’re interested. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AZADEA Group[edit]

AZADEA Group (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 am not convinced that this company meets WP:NCORP. While there are some sources out there, the coverage is either trivial or consists of press releases announcing their acquisition of a new brand. There may be more sources available in Arabic that I am not able to find, however. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Except for Ko Ko Chit Chit, none of the "keep" opinions proposes or discusses relevant sources. But sources are what matters in this discussion. Sandstein 16:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VMG Telecoms Myanmar[edit]

VMG Telecoms Myanmar (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 able to find anything substantial enough to establish notability. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NORG. Gritmem (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that the article requires improvement but has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources from Myanmar's biggest newspaper The Myanmar Times [8], [9], [10]. The existing source in the article can establish notability. The VMG is a major telecommunications service company in my country. The company once hold biggest telecommunications market in Myanmar and has launched a first ever licensed international Calling card, Ytalk (Once in Myanmar, Ytalk used to be more popular than Viber). When the sources are in Burmese language, it does not mean that that is not notable. If you can't read the Burmese language sources? please use the Google web-translation. Thanks "KoKoChitChit" (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" is not the full extent of the requirements to establish notability. For example, you have ignored the requirement that the article must contain "Independent Content". You provided three references:
    • The Myanmar Times reference is not significant coverage, contains no in-depth information on the company and is a run-of-the-mill piece based on a company announcement. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    • This also from The Myanmar Times is based entirely on an interview with the CEO of the company, is not significant coverage and contains no in-depth information on the company. It also fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    • Also from The Myanmar Times and it compares YTalk and Viber. The article like the other two is not significant coverage and contains no in-depth information on the company. It is based on a statement from the company and a statement from the head of Myanmar Posts and Telecommunications company. The reference also fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • Just because the sources are in another language doesn't mean that our policies and guidelines on establishing notability don't apply. Please read WP:NCORP. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. Understanding that this is in part because of systemic bias (language) in Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointing out WP:BEFORE and WP:BIAS without giving any reason why it meets WP:GNG easily, is in fact a very weak and dubious rationale for keep. I seriously do not understand why you mentioned WP:BEFORE when there is already a delete !vote posted above. Now for your info, there are only 3 considerable sources available about this topic, all are included here or in the article. You could have known that if you have done WP:BEFORE before !voting. All the three sources have been analysed above by HighKing an hour before you !voted. None of the available sources is near WP:SIGCOV. WP:BIAS is an essay, not a policy, above all not a reason for a wild card entry into Wikipedia mainspace. Hitro talk 08:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards Delete. While the three new sources are excellent, it is still only three sources, and that to me is not exactly proof of notability. More on the cusp, potentially, for WP:CORPDEPTH? 67.243.20.177 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgot to mention I did my own research and had no luck finding additional sources. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This company is notable with growing affiliated offices in San Francisco and Bangkok. It also operates in a number of markets and is significant due to being one of the Myanmar's first in category of telecommunications. IMO. 37.111.43.38 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability for those claims? That would be very helpful. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I cannot find significant coverage. I see claims about passing WP:GNG above. If someone shares the sources, I'll change my vote. --MarioGom (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lower East Preservation Initiative[edit]

Lower East Preservation Initiative (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)

May not meet the notability guideline, and sources are mainly primary sources. Article may also be written by someone in close connection with the subject. Mopswade (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasoosi Digest[edit]

Jasoosi Digest (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)

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any RS regarding this. --Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amali Science[edit]

Amali Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable publication. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - total fails of WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. czar 04:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Atlanta[edit]

Global Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable news website that does not meet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)) James Richards 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create

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 Han Terra. (non-admin closure) buidhe 15:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Maestro Who Saved Girl Ginius[edit]

A Maestro Who Saved Girl Ginius (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 can only find the article's subject on digital stores (Amazon, iTunes, etc.), I could not find a site that mentions its background or a site with reviews. The article is already marked for being written like an advertisement. Not to mention, the article is also misspelled (a page move could fix this, but why bother, when this article clearly lacks notability). --D1119 (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Han Terra: Barely found anything about the album. I used Google Translate to view the sources (since it's the only way for me to verify them). And none of them mentions anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renthal[edit]

Renthal (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)

1. This page is an orphan 2. Very few citations 3. Unremarkable company 4. Little activity 5. Conflict of interest. (edits by user Renthal1969), has been marked as promotional many times. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. It makes handlebars for motorcycles. Think WP:MILL. Think total WP:GNG fail. Think of WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irony Bribe[edit]

Irony Bribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NEOLOGISM that isn't in common use. A Google search brings up a bunch of hits for a single research paper using this phrase. One research paper does not a notable neologism make. Hog Farm (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete little-used neologism for an old concept. Pichpich (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT as a fork of guilty pleasure. Relying completely on a single source is original research. No need for a redirect for such an uncommon neologism. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maritime republics. Protection requested at WP:RPP (non-admin closure) buidhe 15:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant republic[edit]

Merchant republic (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 was a redirect to Maritime republics until today when an IP wrote or rewrote this completely garbled version. User:Doug Weller restored their redirect but it was removed again. It’s an incoherent ramble which will only serve to mislead readers, so I’m bringing it here. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect No clear reason why this would be a separate article, content already covered there. Reywas92^Talk 21:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted as having been created and then edited by two sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-/Archive. This is part of an odd push by editors and IPs from Rio de Janeiro, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Editor(s) adding categories from strategy games to articles and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board/Archive 2#Europa Universalis government types applied in real world - there are other similar threads. Doug Weller talk 05:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Protect as a redirect which it is as I write. The redirect is a credible search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez[edit]

Death of Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reviewed under new article curation process. Essentially a very specific news event which fails Wikipedia:Notability (events), has no in depth coverage to satisfy wp:GNG. Article was previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge As nominator. Per reasons in nom. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 17:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will You? (Hazel O'Connor song)[edit]

Will You? (Hazel O'Connor song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another song title that should just be a redirect to its album, and another one that's not going to get there without a detour to AfD... the only source here that is "substantial" is a primary source, by O'Connor herself [11] (plus there is a book - also by her). The rest only ever fleetingly touches on the song [12], or is lists. Not article material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I will of course stand by the result of the AfD, but as the person who restored this article and added sources, I do honestly believe that a song that was a top ten hit in two countries and sold a quarter of a million copies in one of them is far from being not notable, and that it's simply the song's age that prevents further sources from being found online – anyone who was listening to music in the UK in the early 1980s will know this is a very well known song indeed. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not how we roll - for any topic. If everyone has heard about X but no one (independently, substantially) has written about it, then we do not have the basis for an article. The approach of "people have heard of it, and we'll just pull material from connected sources and scattered tidbits to fill the article" is not good encyclopedic procedure, and not accepted for any topic on WP - it's not just songs. WP:NSONG is really quite clear about that, and I wish people would check their song articles against that before putting in all the work. I don't enjoy shooting these down either :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I know that my statement is anecdotal, but the top ten hits and certification aren't. My big problem here is that Wikipedia has an enormous systemic bias towards recent songs and albums, because it's easy to find information on them online, and we will never redress this imbalance unless someone has access to print media from the past and is prepared to spend literally years sitting down and going through it to create decent articles for records from the 1980s and 1990s. Additionally, it's so easy to gain certifications nowadays through streaming (you don't even have to release the record to have it certified), almost every song released now will be considered "notable" because of this, even if they have zero content – I came across this article the other day, for example... to me, it has far less encyclopedic content than the subject of this AfD. But because it has a diamond certification, there is no chance of it being deleted at AfD, even though it tells you next to nothing about the song. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's so. If the material isn't online, it's much harder to create a well-sourced article. But that's a consequence of our sourcing model, and the other side of the coin of "all statements can be checked by the reader". - Re Va Bene (L'Algérino song), well that's an obvious candidate for deletion, if no more substantial coverage can be found... umpteen million views notwithstanding. In fact I'll have a check now, and if nothing comes up, to AfD it goes. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to pick a fight - I've seen your contributions at AfD and page reviewing, and I'm appreciative of your work. I just think we differ in our assessment of what is likely to be notable, if the sources were readily available. I could look at Welcome Home (Peters and Lee song) and Prince Charming (Adam and the Ants song), and once I take out all the unsourced original research and poorly sourced material, all I'm left with for both songs is basically "it reached number one in the UK". The articles would be just a chart position and little else. But... they were both the third biggest-selling singles in the UK in their respective years, 1973 and 1981. Are the articles in their current state complete crap? Undoubtedly. Do I think they should be deleted because the only thing I can verify at present is their chart position? No, not really - if they were outsold by only two records that year, to me that indicates that they are probably notable, if only I had access to print sources from the time. But I don't think we are going to convince each other of our positions here. Richard3120 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The song is a Top 10 hit in UK & Ireland. I even found a couple of sources about the song: [13] and [14]. The said sources, including most of the ones stated in the article (except for her book since it's considered a primary source), make the article good enought to pass WP:NSONG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little less attitude, little more reasonable comments, please. Are these sources supposed to be jokes? Did you just randomly google the words "will you"? Sheesh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We may be on opposite sides of the debate, but I'm in agreement with Elmidae here – two passing mentions of the song, one of which is simply the author saying it was playing on the radio during one event in his life, do not constitute passes of notability... I mean, "radio station plays song" is not exactly an earth-shattering event. Richard3120 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll disregard this one, a literature which merely mentions the song. I found a couple more sources which partially explain about the song: [15] and [16]. I have explained enough. And I won't reply any further as my vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously notable. Clear pass of WP:NALBUM #2. In practice we would consider this to be notable, especially if it reached the top ten. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh Necrothesp - not expecting anything different from Andrew, but from an admin this gets me. Are you among those who do not understand that the criteria at WP:NALBUM (and WP:NSONG) are not pass criteria, but criteria that indicate that there may exist sufficient in-depth coverage to allow a pass? There is no such thing as "pass by WP:NALBUM #2". You still have to demonstrate that coverage exists. Where is it? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Wikipedia perfectly well. I've been here 16 years. My opinion, as clearly stated, stands. This is an AfD discussion. Wikipedia does not have strict inclusion criteria. If it did we wouldn't bother with AfDs at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from seniority plus "I do not have to demonstrate anything, I haz opinion". I'm impressed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed with your attitude, frankly. But there we go. It's quite obvious nobody else yet agrees with you, so let's just leave it for the closer and stop the arrogant, patronising and insulting tone that you seem to have adopted. As you said above, Little less attitude, little more reasonable comments, please. Applies to you too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are many contexts for the single, not just the album -- the movie, the singer, the sax solo, the IRA anecdote, &c. Per WP:NOTPAPER, there's no good reason we can't have a page to do this properly. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a top ten single in two countries and sold over 200,000 copies in the UK. 2.5 million views on YouTube for a song almost 40 years old is also impressive. IMO there is enough information on the article now to qualify for notability Huddsblue (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, A sourced article for a top ten song, sold and viewed in hundreds is notable. Alex-h (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator turns out to be a blocked sock. MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the performing arts[edit]

Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the performing arts (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 relevant, too many micropages about Coronavirus Kilographography (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 20:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was created after a discussion with User:Wittylama on Talk:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the arts and cultural heritage as the page Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the arts and cultural heritage cannot list all impacts towards performing arts and/or a reasonably comprehensive list of streaming performing arts production. The performing arts page is modelled after both the arts and culture page and Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on the music industry. Corachow (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this should be speedy closed as a bad faith nomination. The nominator is a brand new, first-day user with fewer than 20 edits, at least one of which was to falsely tag a new article as a hoax. Others were to place fraudulent accusations on Jimbo's talk page. I doubt if that user will be with us for very long, but in any case this is an invalid AfD nomination. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  and....blocked as a sock. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Speedy keep as no valid rationale given. We don't care whether you think there are "too many articles" on any given topic; either something meets our notability criteria or it doesn't. ‑ Iridescent 20:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is more than a "micropage" and is a narrow-in-scope, valid, and sourced topic. --MuZemike 20:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynno Lovert[edit]

Lynno Lovert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable actor, 0 reliable sources and likely vanity spam Praxidicae (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page and I don't think it should be deleted because Lynno Lovert is indeed an actor. Here are some articles that support that fact:

https://www.missginapromotes.com/1153-2/ https://dcodedtv.com/lynno-lovert-breaks-silence-reveals-mothers-cause-of-death/ https://www.betatinz.com/2020/02/lynno-lovert-onyama-laura-and-godisz.html

Ndinge (talk)

These are some other articles that prove that he is indeed a notable actor: https://lefilmcamerounais.com/2018/09/25/people-quatre-acteurs-et-actrices-a-decouvrir-2/

https://www.journalducameroun.com/en/cameroonian-movie-saving-mbango-premieres-in-douala-on-saturday/

Ndinge (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The movies he's starred in do not appear to be notable. The awards he is a recipient of are not notable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The problem isn't that we doubt he's an actor, it's that he's not a notable one. There is no coverage I could see besides [17], which is just a passing mention. PK650 (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and specifically for lack of significant coverage in independent sources. There's a single passing mention in one reliable source and four web pages of dubious reliability and/or independence (PR and social media). Lots of character actors act in films and TV; even my triplet brother acted in a video that was once on MTV. Cameroon is not such a big market (cf. Nigeria or Egypt) that there might be a presumption of notability. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Copyvios can be resolved by normal processes -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso A. Dragani[edit]

Tommaso A. Dragani (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 or section have been copied and pasted from (https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0654-y), possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please find the CopyVios report. Amkgp (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article, as it is now, doesn't violate any copyright. Please, provide precise proofs, in case you do not agree. Vasssi (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)— Vasssi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
• Keep The article looks like as it has been modified. Indeed, it does not violate any copyright, as it is different from https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0654-y Kat7531 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC).— Kat7531 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
• Keep I checked and saw that there is no plagiarism with the material reported in BMC Medicine. The article complies with Wikipedia policies. So there is no reason to delete it. Adalberto75 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC).— Adalberto75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
• Amkgp, if "copyvio" is the only metric by which you are nominating this page, then I will have to speedy close as that has been dealt with. If there is another valid reason why this page should be deleted, please update your nomination. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• copyyvio aside, this is spam and needs to be blown up. I'd suggest draftifying and requiring AFC. Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Primefac Copyvio is the main issue. I was little doubtful because I was concerned whether any percentage of grace in copying is allowable or not as currently its showing 13% similarity because the creator has made changes after the delete notice. Amkgp (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wounded[edit]

The Wounded (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)

Only one source, which is self-published. Interwikis are unsourced; the PT one has just been SDed by me. Can't find anything beyond trivial on Google. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac15 19:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Masi[edit]

Carlo Masi (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 was rejected as a draft at WP:afc, the rejection has been vociferously argued against at a number of venues by User:AlejandroLeloirRey so I accepted the article and have bought it here for wider participation into whether it passes WP:GNG. I am neutral. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hi, I was disappointed by the rejection because it was mostly motivated with bad sourcing. People who rejected my draft don't speak any Italian. Therefore, being almost all the sources in Italian, I wonder how can they judge them. Now, if there is something I need to change I will be happy to do so but the sources I have used are: a biography of Carlo Masi (Ruggero Freddi) written by Strega Prize winner Walter Siti, who is one of the most important Italian writers alive. This biography is a book published by Rizzoli Libri one of the most important Italian publishers. Apart from the book I used as a source Corriere della Sera, la Repubblica, La Stampa and Il Giornale which are the most important Italian national news papers, very reliable and authoritative (here you can find a list of the most the most popular daily Italian newspapers and you can check they are respectively in 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th position). Moreover I used Attitude (magazine), Times Higher Education, Gay Star News, Vanity Fair (magazines) (here it says it is reliable for wikipedia) and Vice (magazine)(here it says that its reliability is not consensus ) but mostly in the "media attention" part. I also used for some details about his porn career Xbiz (here it says it is reliable for wikipedia). Finally, I gave the link to the segment of the tv show where he asked his partner to marry him. Every single article I cite here is entirely on Carlo Masi (Ruggero Freddi) apart from the review of theater show he did, but even there his name is in bold and he is the main character. I didn't use anything reported to be an unreliable source but something might have slipped in. Please, give a look to other gay porn stars bios here on wikipedia and tell me if this one I wrote is not way better. Someone questioned about his notability, if after having read this biography you are not convinced about his notability I will feed you with more info. Remamber: Please do not bite the newcomers --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable performer in pornographic films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was an exclusive model for what was considered the most prestigious company on the market Colt Studio Group, not only that, he was the main actor of the company. Supporting this there are three major facts: first he is the only one ever named Colt Man Emeritus, second he is the one chosen as the cover man for the 40th year anniversary book of the company and third, even if he retired almost 10 years ago, in the model section of the company's web site he is still the most popular(here is the link: https://www.coltstudiogroup.com/models) . If that is not enough, how many gay porn actor do you think were famous enough to make tour across USA, Mexico and Europe in clubs and discos?(this is pretty easy to be checked). Look at this page, merchandise with his pictures is still sold: https://coltstudiostore.com/search?type=product&q=carlo+masi . He is on greeting cards, fridge magnets, tens of calendars (mostly covers), shower curtains, lap top sleeves, books, notebook and consider that most of his merchandise is sold out now as, once again, he retired years ago.

As a support for his notability (before 2017 so before he become known as a porn actor who become a professor) see that he was the first and only gay porn stars ever accepted in the circuit of the national Italian tv. He was the guest star of the most important Italian tv shows. For example this video is from his FaceBook: https://www.facebook.com/RuggeroFreddi/videos/253527992083794/ . It is Chiambretti Night one of the most followed Italian tv show and he was the Guest Star (he was the special guest there a few times)https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/porn-actor-carlo-masi-attends-chiambretti-night-italian-tv-news-photo/98752998, and this was 2010 so way before he became a professor. Moreover he was on National Italian newspaper when he acted in a theater piece of Beckett: la Repubblica-article, Corriere della Sera- article, La Stampa-article. these are article entirely about him not a mere mention and the articles say that he was chosen because the director was looking for a porn star as a symbol of desire.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I see good sourcing here. I think the news coverage on the teacher/porn actor controversy gave Masi an opportunity to participate in Italy's national debate about sexuality. The Carlo Masi article on Italian Wikipedia is even longer and more comprehensively sourced. I know that the fact that a page exists on another language Wikipedia doesn't mean it's notable on English WP, but it does support the creator's claim that the subject has been well covered in Italian media. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If we judged this subject as an entertainer WP:ENT they would fail. If we judged them as a academic WP:PROF they would fail. The fact that they were both a non-notable entertainer and a non-notable academic does not somehow make them notable, no matter the contrast of the two occupations. There's been plenty of other newscycle stories about pornographic actors going on to work in a more humble or unexpected occupation. The uniqueness makes for a fun news story and that's why they got coverage, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, nor is it a celebrity gossip site. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails both WP:Prof and WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. The sourcing...is not good. Out of the present 39 refs, around 15 are to Siti's book. While Siti is a great writer, this is not a straight biography; it would be described as a novelisation of someones life. An online review [18] google translates as "After all, “ what is a true story? Does the truth-novel exist? Truth has to do with science and jurisprudence, not with literature or with life ”. Which means that the question is irrelevant: that the two stories are more or less truthful, more or less exact in recalling the unfolding of the facts, the narration is authentic, thanks to that narrative voice that allows you to trace the origin of the speech in reality outside the text, without being bound to it. It is not reality that interests the writer..." It is literature rather than biography, seems to be listed as a novel at Amazon and so not WP:RS, especially for a BLP. IMDB appears twice, and the subjects listing at the Adult Films Database (which seems to be as reliable a source as IMDB) is used as well. So half the references are to non reliable sources. Curdle (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siti explains in the last chapter of the book that all the facts described in the book have all actually happened. For the other "unreliable sources" it is important to see the context in which they are used, for example if they are used to prove specific fact like he was on a cover than anything that actually shows that cover will do.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Historical novels often have a similar note. The author himself describes the book as a novel! again, from that review "since, as the author points out in the concluding note, “it is easy to say 'true story' : if the story is told in a novel , it cannot be completely true " It doesn't mean they are WP:RS. And sources "to prove he was on the cover" need to be more than a link to the cover itself (primary source), secondary sources are what is needed to provide notability. Curdle (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • “it is easy to say 'true story' : if the story is told in a novel , it cannot be completely true " this is a general statement true for every book. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets GNG even if sourcing is in Italian. Sources for porn performers is notoriously hard to find but hopefully more will be found, including video interviews. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - # User:AlejandroLeloirRey, created this page in mainspace, which was moved to draft space by first reviewer with the reason that it's improperly sourced. # Then Second reviewer rejected the draft submission it again for the same reason. # Third time I rejected it saying subject is not notable (Obviously, even here many agree with me, that sources are not reliable+not much sign of notability as per policies and much more). by the time the creator has gone to several pages including talk pages of all the reviewers, teahouse, afc help page and asked further questions about it. Not just that as this was needed but they also raised questions on other such pornbios on the same lines on which their draft was rejected. This utter desperateness shows strong signs of COI/self promotion and I won't vote to keep it. They have made almost 94 edits on the draft and all of their other edits around 300 are on other pages to pursue others to accept this draft which makes me more negative. Additionally personal attacks on my talkpage and some other pages are not acceptable at all. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is this a personal attack WP:PA ? are we discussing me or the bio? If I did something wrong you can suspend me or block me but this has nothing to do with carlo's bio. This is not a voting process, only arguments count so what is the point of this comment?. If you don't feel that carlo's bio should stay I am fine with it, but don't personally attack me, please.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete – I have been on the fence about this one. There are a lot of sources that look very reliable on the face of it, but even so I don't think notability is met. First, the person is clearly not notable as a performer (WP:NACTOR), second, he is clearly not notable as an academic (WP:NPROF). So any notability will have to stem from WP:ANYBIO coverage in secondary sources, and there, I think WP:BLP1E applies – there were a flurry of newspaper reports surrounding one event as discussed in the section "Media attention", but nothing more sustained. As for the book, that clearly can't be used to verify any information given the fact that it is a fictionalised account. Even so, the fact that the person is the subject of (part of) a book is probably the strongest claim to notability – but I do not believe that that on its own makes him meet WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 17:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but trim) per WP:BASIC based on sustained independent coverage. During Masi's porn career, he received coverage: XBIZ 2008 and AVN 2009. In 2011, he was included in the book, Gay Porn Heroes: 100 Most Famous Porn Stars by J. C. Adams. When Masi transitioned into theater, he received coverage: la Repubblica 2010. Masi received the most coverage with his transition to academia: Vanity Fair 2017 and Pink News 2018. His 2018 civil union/marriage was covered by the press: Gay Star News, On Top Magazine, Pink News, Queerty. In 2020, he is a subject of a book by Walter Siti [it] [19]. TJMSmith (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As stated above, there are reliable sources and sustained coverage beyond WP:BLP1E. Passes WP:GNG. --MarioGom (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't judge why someone is notable, so long as they pass WP:GNG because of WP:SIGCOV. In this case, there is significant, ongoing coverage, in part because of the incongruity of a "porn star" becoming a math professor. WP:ODD and April Fool's Day WP:DYK are filled with such articles. As an adult actor, he was a big star in dozens of films, from a major adult film studio, and won top awards in his field (pardon the puns). As an academic, he would not normally be notable, but many academics become famous for controversy rather than publishing. His marriage/civil union was widely reported in almost every gay publication and web site. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Metroid (fictional species). (non-admin closure) buidhe 15:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Metroid[edit]

Queen Metroid (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 any notability for this fictional character. Was previously deleted, but as a redirect. I'm not a video game expert so taking this to AFD not PROD. WP:GNG fail. Hog Farm (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable character fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Characters in the Metroid series. — Hunter Kahn 23:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Metroid (fictional species), which is a more specific target and actually mentions this character. Needless to say, this article fails WP:GNG, as it is completely unsourced, which also means there is nothing to Merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect. I don't see why it needs to be deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
• Redirect to Metroid (fictional species), per Devonian Wombat. Not notable on its own at all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting this Metroid character is in my opinion, not necessary, I don't see the problem, the character appears in many games so it is notable. (preceeding unsigned comment by User:MetroidGuy1998.)

That does not make the character notable per Wikipedia standards. Per Wikipedia:GNG for a subject to be notable we need significant coverage from multiple reliale sources that are independent of the subject. To be blunt unless quality sources are found soon this article doesn't stand a chance of being kept.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that they converted the dappage SR 388 to an unsourced article about the fictional planrt, can someone please restore?--69.157.252.96 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Voice Group[edit]

The Global Voice Group (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)

Little coverage from reputable news sources, although it is founded by a former Prime Minister of Haiti according to Wikipedia policy this company still fails to meet the requirements since it cannot inherit notability. James Richards (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - run of the mill telephone company, which does not inherit notability because of who funded it. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 15:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Anderson (punter)[edit]

Ryan Anderson (punter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable American football player. Has not appeared in an NFL game, only an offseason part of a team. He may have some notability from his college performance, but couldn't find RS. Natg 19 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Anderson was the first-team All-Big Ten punter in 2017 and received significant coverage. See, e.g., here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, he has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Definitely meets GNG at this point. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Roland[edit]

Justin Roland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable American football player. Never played an NFL game, and simply was an offseason member of several teams. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete never player pro. Being a high school football coach does not cut it either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GRIDIRON, couldn't find any WP:GNG articles on him. SportingFlyer T·C 03:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (no pertinent pro games) and WP:NCOLLATH (no notable awards, etc.). Other that this one piece, not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources of the type required to pass under WP:GNG. If other examples of significant coverage are found, I am willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Dombrowski[edit]

Jake Dombrowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable American football player. Never played an NFL game, and simply was an offseason member of a team. Natg 19 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:NGRIDIRON. Being all-Ivy League is insufficient to show notability and he never played in a regular season NFL game. Papaursa (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Stahovich[edit]

Brian Stahovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable American football player. Never played an NFL game, and simply was an offseason member of teams. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Routine coverage of signings does not meet WP:GNG. Being a college's special teams player of the year doesn't meet any notability critieria nor does playing on some practice squads. Fails to meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. Papaursa (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Academic Challenger (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Buttar[edit]

Shahid Buttar (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)

Campaign advertisement masquerading as a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Wikipedia is also not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Try Ballotpedia. KidAd (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd requested this to be draftified at REFUND so I could put it together, but it looks like someone else created a new article in the meantime. Anyway, I think this pretty clearly meets GNG:
  Post-Super-Tuesday sources: [20] [21] [22] [23].
  Earlier sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]
  Bolded sources are listed as "generally reliable" on RSP, although of course that doesn't preclude the others from being reliable sources. I didn't bold Buzzfeed News, because the article is post-2019, and therefore "some editors recommend exercising more caution." Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, it’s worth noting that all of the sources I linked were published after the last AfD nomination. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly there are enough sources out there to pass GNG, and these sources also clearly provide exceptional coverage as he has been covered in National News publications, not just local media. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, but the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always be exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. Rather, to make a non-winning candidate for office notable enough for a Wikipedia article, he needs to pass one of two tests: either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, or (b) he can demonstrate a reason why his candidacy would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, such that even if he loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again as long as he lives, people will still be looking for information about him in 2030 because of the sheer lasting importance of his candidacy itself.
  Furthermore, even if he did pass either NPOL or GNG, he would still not be allowed to have an article that was written like a campaign brochure: that is, bulletpointed lists of his political opinions sourced to his self-published Twitter tweets are not support for his notability. Notability does not hinge on what the subject says, it hinges on what the subject accomplishes. But of the 34 footnotes here, 18 are tweets, three are to his own self-published website about his own campaign, four are other primary sources like other people's or organizations' self-published websites, three are to raw tables of election results, one is a YouTube video and one is a user-generated personal essay on Medium.com — which means 30 of the 34 footnotes are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all, and the four that are left aren't enough to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Even Gaelan's 12 sources above still aren't enough to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies, because every other candidate can always also show 12 sources.
  As always, Wikipedia's job is not to maintain an article about everybody whose name happens to show up in the current news cycle — we consider the enduring significance of our article subjects, not just their temporary newsiness, and simply running as a candidate in an election the person has not won is not automatically a mark of enduring significance in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bearcat: I have several issues with this argument.

  First, as best I can tell, your argument has little basis in policy. NPOL explicitly allows for candidates to get articles if they pass GNG, and GNG has no requirement that the subject has an unusual amount of coverage or anything like that.

  However, the amount of coverage here is pretty exceptional. Unusually for a House candidate, he's received extensive coverage in the national media. The reason for this—which also forms a pretty good argument for the 10 year test, IMO—is in the headline of the Intercept article: NANCY PELOSI TO RECEIVE FIRST GENUINE LEFT-WING CHALLENGE IN 30 YEARS. This is one of the most important figures in US politics, who has been considered untouchable for 30 years, receiving a credible challenge. In 10 years, Buttar will either be notable because he won (and served as an example of the Democratic party's shift into the "AOC era") or lost, and served to demonstrate the limits of that shift. The fact that candidacy got to this point—a general election challenge—is notable.

  Finally, the state of the article now is not a notability argument. I completely agree that the current citations aren't great, but that's why I found a bunch more sources! And sure, every candidate can find 12 sources. But in the national media? I'm pretty sure that's unusual. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, the understanding and interpretation of policies is debated and disputed all the time on here. So it isn't just a matter of reading the letter of a policy statement — you also have to familiarize yourself with established consensus around how the policies are applied in actual practice when they come up for debate in similar situations. And the established consensus is as I described: every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, and thus every candidate in every election can always claim that they have passed GNG and are therefore exempted from having to satisfy NPOL at all — so we have an established consensus that the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough, precisely because our established consensus that candidates are not all notable enough for articles on here would be inherently meaningless if every candidate could always exempt themselves from it.
  GNG is not simply a matter of counting up the footnotes and keeping anybody who technically meets or exceeds an arbitrary number of them: GNG is also a matter of testing for the context of what the person is getting covered for, and treating some contexts as less notability-making than other contexts. A person with just one or two media hits can pass GNG if those hits are verifying that the person has accomplished something we deem "inherently" notable, and a person with 15 or 20 media hits can fail GNG if those hits all exist in contexts that are not accepted as "inherently" notable. For instance, if a person wins election to an NPOL-passing office, then you get to start the article as soon as one source can be added to verify that they won the election, and it will be kept on that basis even though it still needs significant improvement before it can actually be considered a good article — but a person who has merely been a non-winning candidate for office, or a holder of a minor local office (such as a smalltown municipal councillor) that is not accepted as a notable one, can still fall below the notability bar even with sourcing that numbers well into the double digits, if they cannot show strong evidence that they're markedly more special than the tens or hundreds of thousands of other people who've done the same thing. Similarly, we also have a rule called WP:BLP1E, whereby people who receive a blip of media coverage in the context of a specific event, but cannot show any enduring notability outside that specific event, are not automatically entitled to keep articles just because they've technically passed an arbitrary number of media hits.
  As I said before, we consider the enduring notability of our article topics, not just their current newsiness: making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not simply a matter of showing that his name exists in the current news cycle, it is a matter of demonstrating that his candidacy would pass the ten year test for enduring importance. Basically, if you can't show that he had preexisting notability for another reason that would already have gotten him an article anyway, then the test he has to pass is not just a reason why he might be of interest to some people today, but a credible and convincing reason why an article about him will still be necessary in 2030. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, congratulations on winning the “Wall of Text award for unnecessary explanation”. Secondly, BLP1E cannot be invoked here because the coverage identified was published months apart, clearly not just in the course of one news cycle. And also, there was clearly an argument set out that you just ignored completely that the nature of this coverage would cause this person to pass the 10-year rule. Your position inexplicably seems to be that being just a candidate for office automatically disqualifies someone from having a Wikipedia page, which is ridiculous. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't say BLP1E has anything to do with this — I raised BLP1E as an example of why just counting the footnotes for their number is not an automatic GNG-maker in and of itself. It's merely one example of how our policies explicitly state that the number of media hits the person can show counts for a lot less toward the notability race than the context of what the person is getting covered for does. And secondly, any notability claim that boils down in its essence to "first person with X characteristic to do a not inherently notable thing" is not in and of itself a WP:10YT-passing notability claim. Being an incumbent officeholder's "first left-wing challenger in Y amount of time" is not, in and of itself, a reason why any significant number of people would still remember his name in 2030, even if he loses the race he's running in. Being an incumbent politician's "first left-wing challenger" is not inherently important or enduringly noteworthy in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearcat:

  then the test he has to pass is not just a reason why he might be of interest to some people today, but a credible and convincing reason why an article about him will still be necessary in 2030

  In case you missed it, I made a case for this in the comment you replied to. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• And in case you missed it, that case was not a convincing one. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearcat: Sorry if I came across as sarcastic in my reply—I just wanted to make sure my argument went unaddressed. That being said, your reply feels pretty close to violating WP:CIVIL. Gaelan 💬✏️ 22:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- per the other arguments for its deletion. Also, that has to be the most pointless infobox I have ever had the misfortune to see, and I have seen a few in my time. Cassianto^Talk 07:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep individual seems both notable for his role in challenging the incumbant to the seat and his previous work in the private sector. additionally article is still underconscruction by other editors i believe. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have restored the history of version deleted in the previous AFD, if anyone is interested. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unelected candidates (even those who challenge the incumbent Speaker of the US House of Representatives) do not pass WP:NPOL. The best case for meeting WP:GNG are the articles in Salon and the Hill. However, our standard for keeping unelected candidates is the campaign coverage needs to rise to the level of Christine O'Donnell or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (after she won the Democratic primary). In both of these cases, the candidate became commonly known nationally and internationally. In addition, this page currently reads like a campaign brochure - which is not the purpose of this project. --Enos733 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM; accord Bearcat and Cassianto. This was deleted less than two years ago, and other than running yet again, there's no new evidence of notability. In 2020, everybody knows we are not Ballotpedia, nor a resume host; we are a charity and a general encyclopedia. Lots of people run for public office, as I did, and even get local coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ottavio Torricelli[edit]

Ottavio Torricelli (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:NBIO, online search does not yield any independent sources, article on the Italian Wikipedia is no different. ToThAc (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ToThAc (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LaSIGE[edit]

LaSIGE (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)

Article deleted via PROD, restored via REFUND. Non-notable entity, written as promotion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Nothing here to prove any notability per WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw fan films universe[edit]

Saw fan films universe (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)

Basically, the article is about three short fan-films based on the Saw franchise. None of these films passes the basic notability threshold of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources and the only sources provided about the films are their IMDb pages, a source that we consider unreliable. The article also contains a few paragraphs about fan films that are simply copied from the article Fan film. Pichpich (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The fan films are not notable, and the group or set is not notable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. After a section about fan films in general the three items mentioned do not meet WP:NFILM. I understand the enthusiasm of the article creator but their facebook page or a blog are better suited for something like this. MarnetteD|Talk 17:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fan works for franchises can be a notable topic, as in Star Trek fan productions, but I don't see that kind of coverage here.★Trekker (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portuguese football records in other countries[edit]

List of Portuguese football records in other countries (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 list of expatriate football people that's just arbitrary glorification. Fails WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]